<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=utf-8 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16722"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Hello,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>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 </FONT><FONT face=Calibri><A
title="http://gogoware.gogo6.com/4105/file.asp?file_id=942
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="http://gogoware.gogo6.com/4105/file.asp?file_id=942">http://gogoware.gogo6.com/4105/file.asp?file_id=942</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>-Ahmed</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT><FONT size=3
face=Calibri></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title="mailto:mattias.gyllenvarg@bredband2.se
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:mattias.gyllenvarg@bredband2.se">Wyatt Mattias Gyllenvarg</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:24 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=address-policy-wg@ripe.net
href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> RE: [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for
6RD</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Hi<BR><BR>We would like to weigh in here.<BR>We feel that it
should be RIPEs policy to allocate ONE /32 to any LIR <BR>who requests it for
6rd.<BR><BR>6rd is the only way for us to reach all our residential customers.
<BR>Especially those in Municipal Networks that are very slow to invest in
<BR>their networks and often do not have the competence and time to
<BR>impelment IPv6.<BR><BR>Also, Cisco has not yet implemented even a small part
of the protective <BR>mechanisms we rely on in IPv4 to secure our residential
networks. Many <BR>of these features are required to meet the demands contracted
with the <BR>customers. We cannot use native IPv6 until Cisco implements these
<BR>features and we have tested and rolled them out on hundreds of
switches.<BR><BR>6rd bypasses all these issues. IF we can get a /32 for that
purpuse.<BR><BR>-- <BR><BR>Med Vänliga Hälsningar - Best regards<BR>Mattias
Gyllenvarg<BR>Network Operations
Center<BR>Bredband2<BR><BR>---------------------- end of line
---------------------------<BR></BODY></HTML>