[routing-wg]Second routing session this week

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:
> 
> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-59/presentations/uploads//presentations/Thursday/Routing%20WG/Evans-IPv6_Routing_Recommendations.HfIV.pdf> 
> 
> 
> 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 at renater.fr     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hôpital
http://www.renater.fr          |  75013 PARIS
--------------------------------------------------------------