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

> Yeah and you almost got me convinced, I have a small portion of my network
> which I know will not do IPv6 native for the next decade. I might deploy 6RD
> there and since we intend to go for /48 on native, I have to do /48 on 6RD
> as well, does this entitle me to a /16 ?
>
> You seem to keep ignoring the fact that I don't think 'administrative ease'
> is a valid argument to waste addresses.

No, Marco, be both stated our point of views, we obviously have
different networks to manage and it seems we will not agree on this
issue. Let's just accept that and go on.

>>> 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 ?
>>
>> You understood me wrong. I will try to explain it differently. If you
>> migrate 1 million customers to IPv6 using 6RD or dual stack, they have
>> native IPv6 in both cases so there will be no difference in traffic.
>> So it just doesn't matter with which technology I bring IPv6 to my
>> customers regarding load balancing (and hence announcing more
>> specifics) requirements. But it does very much matter in terms of $$$
>> I have to spend to bring IPv6 to my customers.
>
>
> 6RD encapsulation and decapsulation comes for free ?

Again, your network seems to be a nice one, where almost all network
devices and IT tools are v6 ready. Congratulations. But I think we
develop policys here for all kind of networks, shouldn't we? 6RD is
not for free but it is -> much <- cheaper than dual stack in some
scenarios, like the one I am faced with when deploying v6.

> MarcoH
>
>

Florian