[routing-wg] IPv6 Routing request

Hi all,

> I'll be interested in hearing what the rest of the working group has to 
> say on this.  When the document was last presented to the group, at the 
> meeting in Lisbon, it was felt that /36 was an appropriate level to 
> limit the worst cases of deaggregation.

There was a consensus in Lisbon that /36 deagregation was a reasonnable 
first step forward. We never said there wouldn't be a second step 
afterward :)

> Is there still a demand for this document to progress?

Yes. I am still facing the same problem as you know and that prevents me 
for deploying IPv6 in some parts of my network. /40 limit is much 
clearer and really helps for addressing plans.

And remember that does not mean that everyone has to implement this 
limit: everyone is free to say it doesn't want to see part of the internet.

Regards,

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