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

In ripe.address-policy-wg, you wrote:
> we are planning to offer IPv6 connectivity to our xDSL and FTTH customer
> base via IPv6-6RD.

That's a bad idea. Please stick to 2002::/16 or simply provide native IPv6
in your backbone.

> We asked RIPE NCC for a larger than /32 allocation (because of the way how
> 6RD encapsulates the customers IPv4 address in his IPv6 address and also
> because we want to give the customer a small subnet).

We choosed to announce 2001:0:d911:c000::/52 as well as 2002:d911:c000::/36
in order to overcoming the anycast hassles for the first months. After that
we had production stable IPv6 and dropped such tunneling hacks.

I oppose handing out large amounts of address space for such legacy methods
to save costs in IPv6 rollout.