[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)

On 11/8/11 1:13 PM, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Apologize, once again, however, I disagree.
>
> My first question is: if we know the address allocation rules then is
> it possible to make a transition scenario wich keeps these rules?
>
> The answer is yes, however, 6RD developers not made any effort to
> deal with these rules.
>
> This should be they problems, not ours.

Dear Turchanyi,

We are not protocol police, for this discussion there is IETF.

6RD is being deployed on the field and this proposal only removes the 
speed-bumps without inserting new troubles. And we want IPv6 deployed, 
do we?

>
> Second question: tha 6RD concept and its conflict with address
> allocation rules was hiden?
>
> The answer is NO. János Mohácsi and me wrote a lenghty paper on this
>  topic, submitted it to the Networks2008 conference, AND gave a copy
> of it to Rémi Deprés at the IETF meeting in Ireland in 2008 August.

Good. So you talked to IETF folks :)

>
> Third question: if we would like to adopt ourself to 6RD, then should
> we change our rules this way?
>
> The answer is: definitely not.
>
> 6RD is just a transition method which should not be use for long
> time. So if somebody think about exeptional looseng of rules, then I
> would suggest to think about allocating temporaly a block off address
> for 6RD, which MUST be returned within 3-5 years!!

We've already been through this discussion, I believe it's in the 
archives. Majority of community feedback went into a way, that 6RD is 
nothing special and we are not happy to spend additional resources for 
recollecting the "special" allocations later on.

We need to start thinking how to remove obstacles for IPv6 deployment 
and not how to put them in there (like we had to do it for IPv4 in order 
to slow-down depletion).

Regards, Jan Žorž