[routing-wg]Re: Comments on IPv6 Routing Recommendations

Hi again,

Well actually I quickly reviewed how /36's are split in our backbone and 
  situation is better than expected. I could more or less share IPv6 
traffic among my transit providers and survive for the coming years with 
the /36 rule... :)

I also managed to find a /36 for all dominions.

*BUT* if I give a /36 to all dominions then I have no /36 left in my 
/32. If I'm asked to manage a new network tomorrow then I might have a 
problem...

As the idea was to dissociate routing & addressing, I'm wondering if 
RIPE NCC would help me get a new /32 if I'm using all my /36's (even if 
there are very few /48's allocated from every /36 )?

==> There is room for a new policy here...

I can quickly present few slide tomorrow to show our situation as I 
understand it might not be clear for everybody.

Thanks,

Jerome










Jerome Durand a écrit :
> Hi all,
> 
> I would really push for "allowing" up to */40*
> I see 2 practical reasons for that considering our IPv6 deployment example.
> 
> 1°) We manage several networks
> ------------------------------
> 
> We are in charge of some networks in some french islands (oversea
> territories) in addition to our main backbone AS2200, where IPv6 is
> fully deployed. These networks have their own AS, own transits... For
> IPv4 we use dedicated /24's, easy!
> 
> It's been years we are trying to deploy IPv6 there and we are facing
> many policy problems (now shifted to this WG). This really prevents IPv6
> deployments in our cutomer networks.
> 
> The solution here would tell me to use a /36 for each island. I would
> then need to use 7 * /36's only for these small networks? I would say OK
> but provide me first with a new /32 so I pick up these /36's in a new
> prefix!
> 
> 2°) We have multiple IPv6 transits on our main backbone
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As IPv6 has been deployed in our networks for many years now we thought
> from the beginning it would be a good idea to have /40 prefix per french
> region (and allocate /48 prefixes to our customers in this /40). We
> thought about allocating a new /40 to a region when the first /40 was
> fully used.
> 
> We also dedicated some address space to some infrastructure networks of
> regional networks, for some projects...
> 
> Therefore we are already using many /36's of our network (and don't have
> enough space for the 7 islands aforementionned BTW...)
> 
> For the moment we have 2 transits (one for north and one for the south)
> to avoid useless waste of our network capacity. I would like to announce
> southern regions with higher preference on southern transit and
> vice-versa for northern transit. Actually I want to be able to do what
> we have always done for IPv4...
> 
> Also I don't know where I will have my transit providers tomorrow and
> how many I will have. I want to be able to have some granularity in the
> way I split traffic among my transit providers. Considering a region
> makes a lot of sense to me.
> 
> The /36 brings too many constraints to me:
> 
>   - Regions next to eachother are not always in the same /36!
>   - We already used many /36's... and would require more address space
> if this proposal is adopted.
>   - We don't want to renumber anything (already faced 2 renumbering
> 6bone -> /35 -> /32... enough please! I don't care so much renumbering
> the backbone but our customers don't have time to lose renumbering their
> IPv6 networks)
> 
> 
> Please note I don't want to announce all the /40's (as I'm not
> announcing all the /24's!!). Aggregation remains a MUST for sure and we
> will probably announce few prefixes at the end. But I already see that
> /36 brings too many limitations... unless I'm provided me with a /28 ;)
> 
> Happy to discuss that tomorrow!!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jerome
> 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------