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

Hi Lutz,

I totally disagree with you :-)

This would slow down the IPv6 rollout. IPv6-RD is a good choice to
bring IPv6 quickly to the customers and fight with the dual stack
implementation later. Maybe you are working at a small ISP, but in the
real world there are a lot of hazards on the way to implement end2end
v6, especially with large ISPs.

Cheers,
Florian

2009/11/25 Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz at iks-jena.de>:
> 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.
>
>