This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bernhard Schmidt
berni at birkenwald.de
Thu Nov 26 18:09:56 CET 2009
Hi, > I see you point, that more specifics of 2002::/16 are disallowed by RFC3056, > but this can easily be changed. 6rd uses the same way to modify RFC3056: It > requires a huge parallel prefix (and route) per ISP. > > In order to overcome the situation I submitted a draft to the IETF. > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-donnerhacke-softwire-ipv6-6to4-00.txt Yeah, nice idea. Why not have router implementations do that by default? We just have hit 300k routes in IPv4, I see no reason why we should not have that amount in IPv6 as well. Bernhard
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]