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

* Mark Townsley wrote:
> As for the status of 6rd in the IETF, draft-townsley… is expired, and 
> has been replaced by the Softwires Working Group document 
> draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-01.txt.

I still reading this draft and try hard to find the benefit over announcing
more specific routes in 2002::/16.

Can you please hit me into the right direction?

> Perhaps the WG could consider a temporary "early adopter" 6rd policy... 
> e.g., for the next 3-5 years, those SPs that can show that native 
> service is not economically viable for them, but commit that they can 
> and will deploy with 6rd, will be allocated space necessary to get off 

I oppose handing out huge amounts of address space which is guaranteed to
fit into a single prefix when removing protocol inherent holes.

I'd favor inserting RPSL route objects below 2002::/16 by the RIR based on
the corresponding IPv4 allocations. This process can be requested by the LIR
and has a limited timescale (multiple renew allowed).