[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 10:45:28 CET 2009
On 2 dec 2009, at 10:38, Florian Frotzler wrote: > Hi Marco, > > I think you're having a bug in your model. The larger prefix for 6RD > is needed to stuff the 32 bit v4 addresses into the v6 addresses. The > larger prefix does not mean there are more customers or more traffic > than with implementing dual stack. So in terms of bandwidth your > argument is false. If there are reasons to load balance, they are > exactly the same with 6RD as with dual stack. If there is any bug in whatever model it's 6RD itself which does not permit to use a from of compression to mapp multiple prefixes into a smaller block. Regarding bandwidth, what would happen if you provide your customers with 6RD and all of a sudden youtube advertises a AAAA ? If bandwidth is not an argument, then please explain why people deaggregate ? 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 ]