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

On 2 dec 2009, at 10:38, Florian Frotzler wrote:

> Hi Marco,
>
> I think you're having a bug in your model. The larger prefix for 6RD
> is needed to stuff the 32 bit v4 addresses into the v6 addresses. The
> larger prefix does not mean there are more customers or more traffic
> than with implementing dual stack. So in terms of bandwidth your
> argument is false. If there are reasons to load balance, they are
> exactly the same with 6RD as with dual stack.


If there is any bug in whatever model it's 6RD itself which does not  
permit to use a from of compression to mapp multiple prefixes into a  
smaller block.

Regarding bandwidth, what would happen if you provide your customers  
with 6RD and all of a sudden youtube advertises a AAAA ? If bandwidth  
is not an argument, then please explain why people deaggregate ?

MarcoH