[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Wed Dec 2 08:43:14 CET 2009
On 1 dec 2009, at 22:45, Remco van Mook wrote: > On the contrary. If 6RD is accepted as an argument for an > allocation, and 6RD without any v4 prefix compression because of > convenience, then every single applicant from then on will say > they've got plans to deploy 6RD and can we please have the /24. They > don't even need to lie, just be let's say 'optimistic'. > > It's not going to be temporary and it's not going to be 'a few' - > also I shudder to think what the 1500-ish LIRs who already have a / > 32 allocation will do based on this. Probably get the extra /24 and > not return the /32 because there's already some stuff in there that > can't be migrated because it's too expensive and will hurt IPv6 > deployment. The same arguments supporting 6RD right now. > > The good news is, this will double the IPv6 routing table in size. > The bad news is, this will double the IPv6 routing table in size. Let's not forget that I will probably announce my 6rd as more specifics to aid in load balancing traffic just as I do with my multiple IPv4 allocations. So routing table times 8 I guess, if we're lucky. I still find this a really bad idea, like Remco says everybody just happens to have plans for 6rd so if they please can get a /24, we might as well make it the default allocation size so people don't have to lie, uhhh be optismistic, about it. MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]