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

2009/12/2 Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at marcoh.net>:
>
> 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.

We had this discussion already, don't know why we have to discuss it
again, the draft does allow for compression but in operational reality
this is a nightmare, as I already stated multiple times.

> 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 ?

You understood me wrong. I will try to explain it differently. If you
migrate 1 million customers to IPv6 using 6RD or dual stack, they have
native IPv6 in both cases so there will be no difference in traffic.
So it just doesn't matter with which technology I bring IPv6 to my
customers regarding load balancing (and hence announcing more
specifics) requirements. But it does very much matter in terms of $$$
I have to spend to bring IPv6 to my customers.

> MarcoH
>
>

Florian