[routing-wg] IPv6 Routing request
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing request
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing request
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jerome Durand
jdurand at renater.fr
Mon Apr 19 17:19:07 CEST 2010
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 --------------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing request
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] IPv6 Routing request
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]