Hello;
I think that people here would be interested in (and likely
concerned by) the ARIN 2010-9 proposal :
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_9.html
"On 15 July 2010 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) selected "IPv6 for 6rd"
as a draft policy for adoption discussion on the PPML and at the
Public Policy Meeting in Atlanta in October.
IPv6 for 6rd
6rd is an incremental method for Service Providers to deploy IPv6,
defined in the IETF Standards Track RFC 5969. 6rd has been used
successfully by a number of service providers to deploy IPv6 based
on automatic IPv6 prefix delegation and tunneling over existing IPv4
infrastructure. .... "
What worries me (and others) is that to give end
users an IPv6 /56 will generally require the assignments as short as /24s
to ISPs, due to the encapsulation of v4 addresses inside of v6 addresses :
"The 6rd prefix is an RIR delegated IPv6 prefix. It must encapsulate
an IPv4 address and must be short enough so that a /56 or /60 can be
given to subscribers."
56 - 32 = a /24
If every ISP or other such entity has to get a /24, then there is
room for 2^21 or two million such entities. If, as
seems likely, ISP assignments to users grow to /48's, then the ISP
will need a /16, and that room shrinks dramatically.
Based on this, I (and a bunch of other people on the ARIN PPML list)
oppose this.
I thought it would be wise to bring this to the attention of the
wider IETF community. ARIN discussion of this matter
of course is going on on the arin-ppml(_at_)arin(_dot_)net list.
Regards
Marshall
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf