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

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:

>> I also feel that 6RD justifies a /32, it doesn't justify a /30 or alike.
>
> No. 6RD in it's natural form "needs" /24 in order to give /56 to users.

Yes, "needs" indeed. It's not a MUST though, it's just operationally 
easier.

With 6RD you can take a IPv6 /36, map 8 bits of IPv4 into a IPv4 /24, map 
24 bits into IPv6, and now you have that /60 you wanted for your 
customers. Yes, you "wasted" an IPv4 /24, but if you're that big so you 
need avoid doing 6RD on IPv4 /16 level (map 16 bits of IPv4 into a single 
IPv4 6RD relay address), give that relay a /40, then you can give your 
customers a /56, "wasting" a single IPv4 address per /16 with some 
additional configuration.

Just to give some perspective if someone still thinks one can't deploy 6RD 
without mapping all of IPv4 space into IPv6. It's not true, it's just more 
complex.

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