[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

Geza,

[...]

> The answer is yes, however, 6RD developers not made any effort to deal with these rules.
> 
> This should be they problems, not ours.
> 
> Second question: tha 6RD concept and its conflict with address allocation rules was hiden?
> 
> The answer is NO. János Mohácsi and me wrote a lenghty paper on this topic, submitted it to the Networks2008 conference, AND gave a copy of it to Rémi Deprés at the IETF meeting in Ireland in 2008 August.

OK, I'll take the bait.

are you referring to "Scoped IPv4 addresses"?
looking at the proposal, I don't understand how that solves the problem at hand?
 - "how to encode multiple IPv4 subnets of varying sizes into an IPv6 prefix"

assuming no renumbering of existing CPEs.
6rd already supports more efficient coding in the case where CPEs are numbered out of 1918, by e.g. masking out the first 8 bits in an 10/8.

the understanding I got from the room, was that moving to an initial /29 allocation on request, was a good and useful change for _native_ IPv6 deployments. sure, 6rd deployments would benefit from it too, but I wouldn't say that shortcomings in 6rd is driving this policy change any longer.

cheers,
Ole