[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

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.

Cheers,
Florian

2009/12/2 Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at marcoh.net>:
>
> On 2 dec 2009, at 10:20, Florian Frotzler wrote:
>
>> Hi Marco,
>>
>> I am slow in understanding, please clarify on this. Why exactly would
>> 6RD lead to more specifics? There are certainly reasons for load
>> balancing v6 traffic, but what changes 6RD in comparison to dual
>> stack?
>
>
> Well I can only assume what happens, but given the number of perfectly good
> /16's that get broken into small pieces 'because it is otherwise hard to
> loadbalance' What those people usually struggle with is that they have 2
> uplinks, but one large CDN picking a particulair route will saturate one of
> them, so the break it up to split the traffic over multiple upstreams.
>
> It lead to the same problem if all of a sudden a large portion of their
> traffic moves to the /24 single annoucement, especially since they haven't
> invested too much in IPv6 connectivity. This of course can be solved by
> buying a bigger pipe, but then again the whole /24 can be avoided by running
> multiple instances of 6RD, since that was put down as additional cost I have
> no hopes on the /24 as well.
>
> MarcoH
>
>