<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jim Reid <<a href="mailto:jim@rfc1035.com">jim@rfc1035.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">On 3 May 2011, at 09:48, Turchanyi Geza wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> If an ISP receive max 2 IPv6 blocks, this is just two entries in the (current BGP) routing table. The use of long prefixes in the costumer's network means more costumers served from the same block. Is there a point where we disagree? </blockquote> </div> Not with the above. However the initial context of this discussion was about issing PI space to end customers. [For some definition of PI space and end customer.] So if one of those customers was to get one of these long prefixes, they might want to keep it if they switch providers => an extra route for a mickey-mouse amount of space. We know from v4 that this is a Bad Thing. </blockquote></div> Fully agree. The IPv6 PI space concept is Bad Thing, because creates routing table fragmantation. Short prefix or long prefix - it does not matter. Routing table fragmentation do matter. G