[routing-wg]IPv6 Routing Recommendations - comments

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