On 6RD space address policy
martin at millnert.se
Thu Mar 11 15:23:07 CET 2010
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 14:47 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> That address space comes from the ISP's own /32 (or more), and thus, if
> they plan correctly they can easily stop doing 6rd at one point and then
> re-use that address space for something else.
Well, considering the amount of space 6RD require, it massively dwarfs
any other equivalent IPv6 method known today (equivalent in terms of
number of customers in non-theoretical, current, operational
Hence, they'd do good, to avoid having to renumber once the 6RD
transition is over and their need for the mostly 6RD space goes away, to
have it allocated in a way that enables them to easily return this
space. Having to renumber back from a /24 to a /32 for example, is not
what I consider easy (for a ~large ISP) IMHO.
> The RIRs are not involved in that part.
There was a case where RIPE did not know how to consider a 6RD request,
so the community was polled for feedback. That discussion on the ipv6-wg
IIRC never reached consensus (more like, it died out).
[ http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2009/msg00166.html ]
I'll pose the question there as this is the second time in a not so long
while that it has come up in my vicinity.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100311/b42eb83a/attachment.bin
More information about the ipv6-ops