Hi Lutz, I totally disagree with you :-) This would slow down the IPv6 rollout. IPv6-RD is a good choice to bring IPv6 quickly to the customers and fight with the dual stack implementation later. Maybe you are working at a small ISP, but in the real world there are a lot of hazards on the way to implement end2end v6, especially with large ISPs. Cheers, Florian 2009/11/25 Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de>:
In ripe.address-policy-wg, you wrote:
we are planning to offer IPv6 connectivity to our xDSL and FTTH customer base via IPv6-6RD.
That's a bad idea. Please stick to 2002::/16 or simply provide native IPv6 in your backbone.
We asked RIPE NCC for a larger than /32 allocation (because of the way how 6RD encapsulates the customers IPv4 address in his IPv6 address and also because we want to give the customer a small subnet).
We choosed to announce 2001:0:d911:c000::/52 as well as 2002:d911:c000::/36 in order to overcoming the anycast hassles for the first months. After that we had production stable IPv6 and dropped such tunneling hacks.
I oppose handing out large amounts of address space for such legacy methods to save costs in IPv6 rollout.