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

Remco van Mook wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> thanks for your response. I'm also happy to see a feasible way of doing
> IPv6 deployment being developed; however I think this audience
> (including me) needs some guidance on how to apply address policy in
> this particular case. I agree that 6rd probably won't be the long term
> way of deploying IPv6. 
>   
I've seen a couple of suggestions so far. One from me, another from 
Tore, that allow an SP the 6rd option without unduly polluting the 
address space. And that's just day one, so it looks like there might be 
some viable options here.
> However, what's being suggested now is that 6rd in an environment with
> non-contiguous allocations pretty much *requires* reserving 32 bits
> (plus 4-8 bits for user prefixes) of v6-space for every single ISP out
> there because the aggregate set of IPv4 allocations to that ISP can't be
> compressed. 
Not every single ISP out there, but for every single ISP that intends to 
use 6rd. Not all will, but some will, particularly those who want to 
move more quickly down the IPv6 delivery path - something that I can't 
help but be in passionate support of.
> I don't think that was how it was intended or how it should
> work. 
>   
Well, *intentions* were that native IPv6 service would be possible to 
everyone many years ago. So much for good intentions. I'd like to see 
the WG at least consider the various options for SPs that want to 
replicate Free's success in IPv6 deployment. The large SPs that already 
claimed their /19 or /20 years ago don't have to worry about that 
whether they are using the space or not, but the other SPs should get a 
fair shake as well.
> I hope you can help us shed some light here.
>   
Hope that helps, and that the WG can come up with some constructive 
options here.

- Mark
> Best,
>
> Remco
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mark Townsley
> Sent: donderdag 26 november 2009 12:00
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
>
>
> All,
>
> My main goal with supporting 6rd is to see IPv6 deployed by Service 
> Providers, preferably before the onslaught of CGNs leading to RFC1918 
> Private IPv4 as the new default Internet Access. As such, the fact that 
> we are even having this conversation is rather encouraging.
>
> At the moment, 6rd accounts for the largest residential IPv6 Internet 
> deployment to date. It's natural that some SPs are interested in 
> replicating what has shown to work well for a neighboring SP. Not all of
>
> them want to go this route, but some do, and I'm thrilled as this very 
> likely means a sooner IPv6 deployment in the world (at least among those
>
> SPs who see 6rd as their most viable alternative). I want to underscore 
> here that we are not talking about forever allocating space away to a 
> transition mechanism as was done with the /16 for 6to4, or the /32 for 
> Teredo. Those address spaces will never be used for anything else, ever.
>
> The 6rd-related requests are, of course, for allocations to SPs that 
> actually want to deploy IPv6 to their subscriber population in relative 
> short order. One day, I hope that 6rd is not necessary for IPv6 
> deployment, but for the moment I'm firmly convinced that it is in a 
> number of cases.
>
> 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 
> the ground. At the end of this period, the WG could re-evaluate whether 
> to abandon the more liberal policy in light of the ability to deploy 
> natively at that time.
>
> 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.
>
> Many Thanks,
>
> - Mark
>
>
>
> This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately.  Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
>
>