[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Lutz Donnerhacke lutz at iks-jena.de
Wed Dec 2 15:20:10 CET 2009
* Rémi Després wrote: > This is avoided with 6rd which is safe, as theory shows and practice > confirms. More specific unicast of 2002::/16 also proofed to work in production. And now? Nobody has an interest in fixing the broken routers for 2002::/16? So let's take a new prefix from the pool and iterate until other technical problems occur? Then take the next prefix ... Sorry, drop and waste is not the recommended allocation policy for any ressource.