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

Hi Marco,

I am slow in understanding, please clarify on this. Why exactly would
6RD lead to more specifics? There are certainly reasons for load
balancing v6 traffic, but what changes 6RD in comparison to dual
stack?

Cheers,
Florian

2009/12/2 Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at marcoh.net>:
>
> 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
>
>