This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lutz Donnerhacke
lutz at iks-jena.de
Wed Dec 2 09:43:13 CET 2009
* 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?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]