[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD

Hi Jan, 

With that many customers getting more than a /32 shouldn't be any problem... Why did the IPRA refuse it? This might just be a misunderstanding somewhere...

Sander

Jan Boogman <boogman at ip-plus.net>schreef:

>Hi Sander
>
>>> We asked RIPE NCC for a larger than /32 allocation (because of the way how
>>> 6RD encapsulates the customers IPv4 address in his IPv6 address and also
>>> because we want to give the customer a small subnet).
>> 
>> In draft-townsley-ipv6-6rd-01 the following example is given:
>> 
>> This example show how the 6rd prefix is created based on a /32 IPv6 prefix
>> with a private IPv4 address were the first octet is "compressed" out:
>>  SP prefix: 2001:0DB8::/32
>>  6rd IPv4 prefix: 10.0.0.0/8
>>  6rd router IPv4 address: 10.100.100.1
>>  6rd site IPv6 prefix: 2001:0DB8:6464:0100::/56
>> 
>> With this scheme you can still give every customer out of an IPv4 /8 an
>> IPv6 /56 subnet. If you have an IPv4 /16 with customers you could
>> "compress" so that every customer has an IPv6 /48. And if you have more
>> than 65k customers you should have no problem with getting a bigger IPv6
>> allocation.
>
>> 
>> Because the IPRA refuses to give you more addresses based on your customer
>> base I suspect that you have less than 65k customers. With a smart IPv4
>> <--> IPv6-RD mapping that should not be a problem for IPv6-RD.
>> 
>> Can you give some extra background information that explains why you need
>> more than a /32?
>
>we have much more than 65k customers, with IPv4 addresses dispersed in many different /8
>We therefore cannot easily compress the IPv4 address and want to use the whole 32bit. 
>However, we plan to allocate only a /60 subnet to the end customer.
>This results in a request for a /28
>
>Jan