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

On 08.11.11 13:13, "Turchanyi Geza" <turchanyi.geza at gmail.com<mailto:turchanyi.geza at gmail.com>> 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.

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.

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!!

Best,

Géza

The question here is; how can we deploy IPv6 quicker? Well, 6rd is one of the technologies that can be used. I will not go into discussions about whether 6RD is good or bad, address policy wise.

However, for our sake, the interesting part of this policy is getting a /29 without the need to justify it. It would for us be more easily to make a good address plan if more bits where available from the start. 2011-04 will enable that.

MVH/Regards
Ragnar