Hi Rob, Thanks for sending the slides. I'm not sure I'll be able to attend tomorrow. Anyway: the main point is that if you give de-aggregation constraints, they need to be taken into consideration by the address policy WG... Because these constraints will always prevent people from reaching the HD ratio: even for the smallest "individual/disconnected" network where you have few customers (all with /48's), you'll always need to dedicate an entire /36 ! A solution I was also proposed was to go for PI (and then force my users to go for PI's too as I can't allocate part of the PI to an end user...) Then instead of announcing an /36 or /40 aggregated prefix, I would need to send n*/48's ! This is the opposite of what we want to do... and I'm only talking about technical aspects here... Thanks again for your great work. It's a first step that needs either: - to be taken into consideration by address policy WG for providing more addresses - few changes to allow more de-aggregation I really hope that we can really adjust policies here (routing AND/OR addressing policies because they are closely related) I strongly prefer we spend time solving IPv6 addressing&routing policy issues now they start to be raised by the community, than discussing for hours about how we're going to make sure that everybody runs out of IPv4 addresses at the same time ;) Cheers, Jerome Rob Evans a écrit :
Folks, as we over-ran this morning, we will be having a second session at 10am Lisbon time in the same room (Floriana III) tomorrow (Friday) morning. The only topic will be IPv6 routing recommendations.
I apologise to those of you for whom this clashes with travel plans or ENUM, but the agenda is always subject to change, and the chairs felt this was better than to try to rush the discussion during the coffee break (and we were, briefly, scheduled to be on Friday morning anyway).
As a reminder, I attach the current draft of the document. Rudiger has already commented that he believes it should use the word 'deaggregation' less. Jerome from RENATER has also explained that it doesn't cover his requirements which are to break up an aggregatable block even further.
The current draft of the (basic) slides is here:
I hope to see you tomorrow.
Rob
-- ------------------------------------------------------------- Jerome Durand Responsable des services aux usagers Services operations & support manager Réseau National de Télécommunications pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche Tel: +33 (0) 1 53 94 20 40 | GIP RENATER Fax: +33 (0) 1 53 94 20 41 | c/o ENSAM E-mail: jdurand@renater.fr | 151 Boulevard de l'Hôpital http://www.renater.fr | 75013 PARIS --------------------------------------------------------------