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

* Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> No no no no. I do NOT want to duplicate the IPv4 table into IPv6 by doing
> that. I'd rather have a single /24 route per ASN for 6RD than multiple 
> routes per ASN into 2002::/16.

Those people deploying 6rd are the only people which will announce more
specifics.

OTOH the discussion here raises a similar concern about 6rd address policy:
"I do NOT want to duplicate the LIR table into IPv6 /24 allocations and
announcements, especially if they are going to traffic engineer those further."

> Also, the problem 6RD tries to solve won't be solved if I filter to only 
> 2002::/16 and don't accept more specifics.

Which problem addresses 6rd? Using 6to4 technology to avoid deployment costs
without fixing the broken anycast routers?