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

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Florian Frotzler wrote:

> No, using 6RD I do not need to account v6 and I do not need to provision
> network elements with v6. Ah yes, and my network elements in between do need
> to speak v6 so that I can leave them in their normal life cycle instead of
> investing a lot of money.

You don't need provision CPE with IPv6, but you have to keep track IPv6 
usage and allocations. You should be able to handle security incidents 
related to your IPv6 users. Better if you keep track complete IPv6 
addresses, therefore some parts of your system needs v6 accounting.
You can postopone upgrading some network elements to IPv6, but you need 
decent 6rd relay and IPv6 connectivity in your peers.

Best Regards,
 	Janos Mohacsi


>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Mohacsi Janos [mailto:mohacsi at niif.hu]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. November 2009 19:23
> An: Florian Frotzler
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Florian Frotzler wrote:
>
>> still quicker as teaching all your IT tools to speak v6...
>
> Use opensource, they are more IPv6 aware. By the way, you have to teach
> your IT tools to speak v6, since with 6RD you are using v6!
>
> Best Regards,
> 	Janos Mohacsi
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Florian
>>
>> 2009/11/25 Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi at niif.hu>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>