On 6RD space address policy
jeroen at unfix.org
Thu Mar 11 15:29:59 CET 2010
Martin Millnert wrote:
> (non-operational content)
> 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
> 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 ]
And as Alex from RIPE NCC answered in the followup, paraphrased:
Don't encode the full 32-bit address in there.
If you have a /20 full of customers, then you only need 12bits to encode
that. Give the user a /48, and you need 48-12 = /36 or for a /56 you
would only need a 56-12 = /48. Sorry but I don't see a problem there.
If you indeed have a /16 full of users, then you need 16 bits, thus
48-16 = /32 only one single /32 ;)
For the ISPs who are much larger than that, well they can easily justify
having more address space.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100311/095e96fd/attachment.bin
More information about the ipv6-ops