[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

Hi Florian,

> It is clearly stated in the draft that you can only aggregate IPv4
> address space if there is a common prefix, like "10" in 10.0.0.0/8.

I was thinking about mapping different common prefixes to different IPv6 ranges by running several IPv6-6RD setups in parallel, but I don't even know if that is possible or feasible. It would be a waste of address space to use one IPv6-6RD setup with 32 bits for the IPv4 address when most of those addresses will never be used. We have a lot of bits in an IPv6 address, but doing this doesn't seem to make sense.

> Free.fr got a /26, as they state in their RIPE-58 presentation, so
> they obviously could argument their need for the address space in
> front of RIPE. This leaves two flows to follow...
> 
> -> either it depends on who from the hostmasters is dealing with your
> allocation request, because why would RIPE deal with Swisscom
> different than with free.fr?
> -> or Swisscom could not argue the need to RIPE in the same way as free.fr?

Good question, but this is something that Swisscom and RIPE NCC should discuss. RIPE NCC won't publicly discuss allocation request details, and that confidentiality is good.

What we need to do as address policy WG is think about how we want to deal with this in general. Do we want/need special policy for IPv6-6RD users? If we think we do, we should define the rules and conditions by writing a formal policy proposal. But we need to check if the current policy isn't good enough already. I think we should have as few 'special' policies as possible.

Sander