[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 ]
Lutz Donnerhacke
lutz at iks-jena.de
Thu Nov 26 13:17:13 CET 2009
* Mark Townsley wrote: > As for the status of 6rd in the IETF, draft-townsley… is expired, and > has been replaced by the Softwires Working Group document > draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-01.txt. I still reading this draft and try hard to find the benefit over announcing more specific routes in 2002::/16. Can you please hit me into the right direction? > Perhaps the WG could consider a temporary "early adopter" 6rd policy... > e.g., for the next 3-5 years, those SPs that can show that native > service is not economically viable for them, but commit that they can > and will deploy with 6rd, will be allocated space necessary to get off I oppose handing out huge amounts of address space which is guaranteed to fit into a single prefix when removing protocol inherent holes. I'd favor inserting RPSL route objects below 2002::/16 by the RIR based on the corresponding IPv4 allocations. This process can be requested by the LIR and has a limited timescale (multiple renew allowed).
- 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 ]