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

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> 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.
I don't think that incentive is terribly realistic, and is if anything a 
recipe for IPv6 forever remaining a bridged service in the home, or 
worse, a further incentive for the adoption of IPv6 NAT.

The incentive to move away from 6rd will be when IPv6 traffic and 
subscriber adoption reach levels where the associated economies of scale 
for IPv6-enabled equipment, applications, operational knowledge, etc. 
are at the point where it is economically viable to deploy natively vs. 
IPv4 alone. We're not there yet, but 6rd is helping.

- Mark


>
> 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.
>