On Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Rob Evans wrote:
1 I would now like to start a four week "last call" on the routing recommendations draft so that it can be published as a RIPE document. Please send comments to the list.
Including mention of a /48 general acceptance seems to be without any logic or foundation. No one needed 16 bits of deaggregation in IPv4, I can't see any reason why 16 bits of deaggregation is needed, or in any way sensible in IPv6. How about suggesting a /36, rather than turning IPv6 deaggregation into the same mess that IPv4 has become - except several orders of magnitude worse, since with v4 the most anyone can expect to deaggregate their /21 is into /24s, growing their slots in the global BGP table 8x, whereas with v6 you're leading a /32 into /48 deaggregation, growing slots in the gobal BGP tables 65536x. Routers won't cope for long with people dumping v6 /48s into the tables in the same way that v4 /24s get dumped into the tables. "The operator community will ultimately decide" - is nonsense, commercial decisions rather than prudent technical decisions take over when it comes to whether to accept silly deaggregation, as a result several high profile content and network providers are no longer running default-free because of the sheer size of the tables no longer fitting on their equipment (which would have fit just fine if it wasn't for general acceptance of excessive deaggregation). Regards James