This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Wed Oct 26 12:47:53 CEST 2011
On 10/26/11 12:05 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > 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. Exactly. But... (there's always a but), operators are yelling about small margins, about not having money to invest in more complex operations, about operations overhead and so on and so on. Personally, I would go with multiple 6RD domains and be done with it. Again, this are facts, complains and questions we get from real life on the operational field. > > 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. Yes. Easily possible, but not heavily practiced in real life. Least possible complexity, least possible operational overhead. If we get them this option, IPv6 service gets deployed. Note the usage of the word "service", not "native" :) Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]