On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Martin Millnert wrote:
Seriously though, I cannot support a policy proposal for 6RD or other transition technologies that burns this much v4 space ( ie , full mapping of ipv4), that does not explicitly attach requirements on the space to A) not be used for anything but the transition technology, and B) clearly be marked by the NCC as being of transition tech $FOO, and finally C) very explicitly be only valid as long as the use stays.
I agree with the above. I do not like to blanket increase to /29 and keep it there for everybody, but I do want people using 6RD who need to map the entire IPv4 space (which isn't strictly needed, if you're a small network you can map just part of the IPv4 space into IPv6 space, for instance on /16 border instead of at /0. I also feel that 6RD justifies a /32, it doesn't justify a /30 or alike. 6RD is a transitioning tech that I would like to see gone in 5 years, and until then I believe a single /64 in the home should be enough for these transitioning tech users. When they get native IPv6, they can get their /56. If an ISP wants to give more space to their end users using 6RD, they'll have to do more granular 6RD mapping. So I guess my counter-proposal is to give everybody a /32, and if they say 6RD then they may get a /31 instead, with the additional /32 usage being reviewed every 5 years or so. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se