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

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Florian Frotzler wrote:

> 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.

6rd is applicable only if the IP provider is controlling the CPE routers 
or 6rd is widely implemented in customers CPEs. So not so quick 
roll-out.
 	Best Regards,
 			Janos Mohacsi


>
> 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.
>>
>>
>
>