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

Jim,

I understand your sceptiscism but in the end the dog will never be a
LIR, he will always be an endsite and the numeber of LIRs will always
be finite.

Cheers,
Florian

2009/12/1 Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>:
> On 1 Dec 2009, at 12:16, Florian Frotzler wrote:
>
>> I can tell you that being forced to implement multiple SP prefixes
>> might be a show-stopper for a numerous of ISPs to implement 6RD,
>> including Swisscom, this is fact. It is a huge operational burden,
>> especially for the IT stack, and means $$$ needed to be spend.
>
> That may well be true Florian. I have no way of knowing because the case for
> these 6RD allocations compared to other approaches hasn't been made clearly
> enough.
>
>> So do we want to hamper the v6 rollout because we like to conserve some
>> bits
>> in an almost endless address space?
>
> Of course nobody wants to hamper v6 deployment. But that does not mean we
> should have a cavalier attitude to v6 allocations. It troubles me when
> people say v6 is "almost endless". It's not. And it will run out fairly
> quickly if the world and its dog can get a /24 (or more) from an RIR simply
> by saying "it's for 6RD" or whatever might be tomorrow's
> flavour-of-the-month v6 transition/deployment scheme.
>
> I'm reminded of the parallels of the early days of the Internet when Class B
> nets were automatically handed out by the NIC from the "almost endless"
> supply of IPv4.
>
> Please note that I'm not opposed to /24 allocations (or higher) for 6RD. If
> there's a clear need for them, then it should happen. Nobody should contest
> that. However the justification for these requests seems somewhat fuzzy.
> Which explains my caution/scepticism.
>