[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [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 ]
Lutz Donnerhacke
lutz at iks-jena.de
Wed Nov 25 17:14:33 CET 2009
In ripe.address-policy-wg, you wrote: > we are planning to offer IPv6 connectivity to our xDSL and FTTH customer > base via IPv6-6RD. That's a bad idea. Please stick to 2002::/16 or simply provide native IPv6 in your backbone. > We asked RIPE NCC for a larger than /32 allocation (because of the way how > 6RD encapsulates the customers IPv4 address in his IPv6 address and also > because we want to give the customer a small subnet). We choosed to announce 2001:0:d911:c000::/52 as well as 2002:d911:c000::/36 in order to overcoming the anycast hassles for the first months. After that we had production stable IPv6 and dropped such tunneling hacks. I oppose handing out large amounts of address space for such legacy methods to save costs in IPv6 rollout.
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [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 ]