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