[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 ]
Florian Frotzler
florian at frotzler.priv.at
Wed Nov 25 17:46:51 CET 2009
Hi Lutz, I totally disagree with you :-) This would slow down the IPv6 rollout. IPv6-RD is a good choice to bring IPv6 quickly to the customers and fight with the dual stack implementation later. Maybe you are working at a small ISP, but in the real world there are a lot of hazards on the way to implement end2end v6, especially with large ISPs. Cheers, Florian 2009/11/25 Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz at iks-jena.de>: > 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): [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 ]