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

Le 13 mars 2011 à 07:26, Ahmed Abu-Abed a écrit :

> If simplicity in IPv6 transition means initially offering IPv6-over-IPv4 to subscribers while meeting 2 fundamental requirements, namely end-user prefix delegation and commercial hardware CPE support, then there are 3 protocols that can be used depending on the service provider requirements: 6rd, TSP and L2TP. 
>  
> If implementing 6rd, service providers may need an allocation larger than /32 as the 6rd protocol embeds the users IPv4 address, or part there of, in their IPv6 address.

Agreed.
Assigning prefixes shorter than /32 to ISP's that accelerate IPv6 deployment with 6rd is IMHO the right choice to promote IPv6 with native addresses.

Regards,
RD

>  
> Regards,
> -Ahmed
>  
> 
> From: Rémi Després
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:10 PM
> To: Gert Doering
> Cc: Kurt Smolderen ; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
> 
> 
> Le 28 févr. 2011 à 15:20, Gert Doering a écrit :
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:13:51AM +0100, Kurt Smolderen wrote:
> >> I strongly support the idea of assigning a smaller prefix to ISPs
> >> which are in a state of deploying IPv6 but need to use transitional
> >> mechanism for (some of) their customers. Mark has described one of
> >> the problems very clear in his email: if an ISP has only a /32
> >> prefix and needs to use all 32 IPv4 bits in the 6rd configuration,
> >> only a /64 can be delivered to the home instead of the desired /56
> >> or /48. Needing all 32 bits is for instance the case when an ISP
> >> offers internet connectivity to some of its customers via a partnership
> >> with another ISP.
> > 
> > Without commenting on the general idea of allocating a larger chunk of
> > addresses to ISPs, I want to make sure that the underlying facts are
> > presented correctly.
> > 
> > While RFC 5569 (the 6rd RFC) takes the "naive" approach of blindly mapping
> > IPv4 <-> IPv6 using the whole 32bits, it doesn't *have* to be that way
> 
> It doesn't have to, right.
> But, if being native permits to deploy good IPv6 service to the masses before other means to do it are available, being naive is better than being overly purist.
> For ISPs that have been assigned several IPv4 prefixes (as many have been), the "naive" approach remains the simplest one to operate.
> 
> Regards,
> RD
> 
>