Hi Marco, I think you're having a bug in your model. The larger prefix for 6RD is needed to stuff the 32 bit v4 addresses into the v6 addresses. The larger prefix does not mean there are more customers or more traffic than with implementing dual stack. So in terms of bandwidth your argument is false. If there are reasons to load balance, they are exactly the same with 6RD as with dual stack. Cheers, Florian 2009/12/2 Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net>:
On 2 dec 2009, at 10:20, Florian Frotzler wrote:
Hi Marco,
I am slow in understanding, please clarify on this. Why exactly would 6RD lead to more specifics? There are certainly reasons for load balancing v6 traffic, but what changes 6RD in comparison to dual stack?
Well I can only assume what happens, but given the number of perfectly good /16's that get broken into small pieces 'because it is otherwise hard to loadbalance' What those people usually struggle with is that they have 2 uplinks, but one large CDN picking a particulair route will saturate one of them, so the break it up to split the traffic over multiple upstreams.
It lead to the same problem if all of a sudden a large portion of their traffic moves to the /24 single annoucement, especially since they haven't invested too much in IPv6 connectivity. This of course can be solved by buying a bigger pipe, but then again the whole /24 can be avoided by running multiple instances of 6RD, since that was put down as additional cost I have no hopes on the /24 as well.
MarcoH