[ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

Hello,

I am new to the Address Policy WG and this seems like quite an old discussion. I endorse assigning a /32 to LIRs regardless of the IPv6 access method they use.

Other than to 6RD, TSP is another protocol (RFC 5572) that can be used to enable IPv6 to end users rapidly over intermediate IPv4 nodes. A useful comparison between TSP, 6RD and other IPv6 access tunneling protocols is shown in http://gogoware.gogo6.com/4105/file.asp?file_id=942

As for IPv6 CPE and server gateways availability, there are commercial solutions in the market that implement 6RD and TSP for both sides of the tunnel.

Regards,
-Ahmed



From: Wyatt Mattias Gyllenvarg 
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:24 PM
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net 
Subject: RE: [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD


Hi

We would like to weigh in here.
We feel that it should be RIPEs policy to allocate ONE /32 to any LIR 
who requests it for 6rd.

6rd is the only way for us to reach all our residential customers. 
Especially those in Municipal Networks that are very slow to invest in 
their networks and often do not have the competence and time to 
impelment IPv6.

Also, Cisco has not yet implemented even a small part of the protective 
mechanisms we rely on in IPv4 to secure our residential networks. Many 
of these features are required to meet the demands contracted with the 
customers. We cannot use native IPv6 until Cisco implements these 
features and we have tested and rolled them out on hundreds of switches.

6rd bypasses all these issues. IF we can get a /32 for that purpuse.

-- 

Med Vänliga Hälsningar - Best regards
Mattias Gyllenvarg
Network Operations Center
Bredband2

---------------------- end of line ---------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110224/4f767cc7/attachment.html>