[ipv6-wg] RE: [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): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 15:25:49 CET 2011
Hello Ahmed, Many thanks for forwarding the comparison table. Temporary solutions are usefull in the transition phase. However, I would prefere emphasize even in the address allocation mechanism if a solution is temporary and should go away in long term. Therefore I fully agree with János, the smallest address space the best in case of 6RD and other non-real-dual-stack method. Géza On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ahmed Abu-Abed <ahmed at tamkien.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I am new to the Address Policy WG and this seems like quite an old > discussion. I endorse assigning a /32 to LIRs regardless of the IPv6 access > method they use. > > Other than to 6RD, TSP is another protocol (RFC 5572) that can be used to > enable IPv6 to end users rapidly over intermediate IPv4 nodes. A useful > comparison between TSP, 6RD and other IPv6 access tunneling protocols is > shown in http://gogoware.gogo6.com/4105/file.asp?file_id=942 > > As for IPv6 CPE and server gateways availability, there are commercial > solutions in the market that implement 6RD and TSP for both sides of the > tunnel. > > Regards, > -Ahmed > > > *From:* Wyatt Mattias Gyllenvarg <mattias.gyllenvarg at bredband2.se> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:24 PM > *To:* address-policy-wg at ripe.net > *Subject:* RE: [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD > > Hi > > We would like to weigh in here. > We feel that it should be RIPEs policy to allocate ONE /32 to any LIR > who requests it for 6rd. > > 6rd is the only way for us to reach all our residential customers. > Especially those in Municipal Networks that are very slow to invest in > their networks and often do not have the competence and time to > impelment IPv6. > > Also, Cisco has not yet implemented even a small part of the protective > mechanisms we rely on in IPv4 to secure our residential networks. Many > of these features are required to meet the demands contracted with the > customers. We cannot use native IPv6 until Cisco implements these > features and we have tested and rolled them out on hundreds of switches. > > 6rd bypasses all these issues. IF we can get a /32 for that purpuse. > > -- > > Med Vänliga Hälsningar - Best regards > Mattias Gyllenvarg > Network Operations Center > Bredband2 > > ---------------------- end of line --------------------------- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110224/ea8d1df6/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]