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

On 1 dec 2009, at 22:45, Remco van Mook wrote:

> On the contrary. If 6RD is accepted as an argument for an  
> allocation, and 6RD without any v4 prefix compression because of  
> convenience, then every single applicant from then on will say  
> they've got plans to deploy 6RD and can we please have the /24. They  
> don't even need to lie, just be let's say 'optimistic'.
>
> It's not going to be temporary and it's not going to be 'a few' -  
> also I shudder to think what the 1500-ish LIRs who already have a / 
> 32 allocation will do based on this. Probably get the extra /24 and  
> not return the /32 because there's already some stuff in there that  
> can't be migrated because it's too expensive and will hurt IPv6  
> deployment. The same arguments supporting 6RD right now.
>
> The good news is, this will double the IPv6 routing table in size.  
> The bad news is, this will double the IPv6 routing table in size.


Let's not forget that I will probably announce my 6rd as more  
specifics to aid in load balancing traffic just as I do with my  
multiple IPv4 allocations. So routing table times 8 I guess, if we're  
lucky.

I still find this a really bad idea, like Remco says everybody just  
happens to have plans for 6rd so if they please can get a /24, we  
might as well make it the default allocation size so people don't have  
to lie, uhhh be optismistic, about it.

MarcoH