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

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Andre Chapuis wrote:

> - For the RIPE-NCC, this is imho even more important to push for v6 
> deployment and therefore to remove any potential obstacle for the ISPs and 
> encourage them to implement 6-RD or similar solutions.

6RD can be adapted to work without mapping the entire 32 bits of IPv4 into 
IPv6. Also, if someone wants to deploy 6RD and do map entire IPv4 into 
IPv6 then I think they should be incetivised to get rid of it quickly as 
well, thus not allow /56 or /60 to each customer, but only a /64. This 
would mean ISPs could make do with their /32 they already have, and then 
they can put their native IPv6 customers into the IPv6 equivalent of 
224.0.0.0/3 because there will be no 6RD traffic there.

If someone wants to offer larger networks then they need to do 6RD 
smarter, instead of mapping the entire IPv4 space into IPv6.

I do *not* think 6RD bad design (or implementation) should warrant giving 
each ISP a /24 or /28.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se