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@renater.fr | 151 Boulevard de l'Hôpital http://www.renater.fr | 75013 PARIS --------------------------------------------------------------