[routing-wg]Re: Comments on IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]Comments on IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]Second routing session this week
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jerome Durand
jdurand at renater.fr
Wed Oct 7 15:07:54 CEST 2009
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 --------------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]Comments on IPv6 Routing Recommendations
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]Second routing session this week
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]