This implies that if assigning prefixes shorter than /32
is not possible, then other transition protocols such as TSP or L2TP can be
used to enable rapid IPv6 transition.
TSP in particular is quite easy to deploy over any
type IPv4 access network and with existing CPEs as it can work behind the
ISP access modem.
Regards,
-Ahmed
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for
6RD
Le 13 mars 2011 à 07:26, Ahmed Abu-Abed a écrit :
>
If simplicity in IPv6 transition means initially offering IPv6-over-IPv4 to
subscribers while meeting 2 fundamental requirements, namely end-user prefix
delegation and commercial hardware CPE support, then there are 3 protocols that
can be used depending on the service provider requirements: 6rd, TSP and L2TP.
>
> If implementing 6rd, service providers may need an
allocation larger than /32 as the 6rd protocol embeds the users IPv4 address, or
part there of, in their IPv6 address.
Agreed.
Assigning prefixes
shorter than /32 to ISP's that accelerate IPv6 deployment with 6rd is IMHO the
right choice to promote IPv6 with native
addresses.
Regards,
RD
>
> Regards,
>
-Ahmed
>
>
> From: Rémi Després
> Sent:
Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:10 PM
> To: Gert Doering
> Cc: Kurt
Smolderen ; address-policy-wg@ripe.net
>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD
>
>
> Le 28 févr. 2011 à 15:20, Gert Doering a écrit :
>
> >
Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:13:51AM +0100, Kurt
Smolderen wrote:
> >> I strongly support the idea of assigning a
smaller prefix to ISPs
> >> which are in a state of deploying IPv6
but need to use transitional
> >> mechanism for (some of) their
customers. Mark has described one of
> >> the problems very clear in
his email: if an ISP has only a /32
> >> prefix and needs to use all
32 IPv4 bits in the 6rd configuration,
> >> only a /64 can be
delivered to the home instead of the desired /56
> >> or /48.
Needing all 32 bits is for instance the case when an ISP
> >> offers
internet connectivity to some of its customers via a partnership
>
>> with another ISP.
> >
> > Without commenting on the
general idea of allocating a larger chunk of
> > addresses to ISPs, I
want to make sure that the underlying facts are
> > presented
correctly.
> >
> > While RFC 5569 (the 6rd RFC) takes the
"naive" approach of blindly mapping
> > IPv4 <-> IPv6 using the
whole 32bits, it doesn't *have* to be that way
>
> It doesn't have
to, right.
> But, if being native permits to deploy good IPv6 service to
the masses before other means to do it are available, being naive is better than
being overly purist.
> For ISPs that have been assigned several IPv4
prefixes (as many have been), the "naive" approach remains the simplest one to
operate.
>
> Regards,
> RD
>
>