In message <9286(_dot_)1286931928(_at_)marajade(_dot_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>,
Michael Richardson writes:
"Mark" == Mark Andrews <marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org> writes:
Mark> In message
Mark> <992DF93E-1EFB-4D68-BDD7-D5C7BE02FC01(_at_)americafree(_dot_)tv>,
Mark> Marshall Euba nks writes:
>> 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
Mark> Only a naive deployment of 6rd would do this.
Mark> If you deploy a 6rd prefix per IPv4 prefix you have allocated
Mark> and set appropriate IPv4 mask lengths in your DHCP replies to
I tried to raise this point in April at the ARIN meeting, but it wasn't
understood.
Deploying 6rd in parallel with native basically doubles the amount
of IPv6 space required for simple deployments.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf