On 26.10.11 15:44, "Michael Adams" <madams@netcologne.de> wrote:
But we want to do native v6 and we need additional bits to make the v6 pools on our access routers big enough for all our residential customers from the beginning. Fortunately the policy text itself is not mentioning 6RD and so it solves our problem too.
+1. Our network model is based on a core network that is owned and operated by Altibox, and several partners networks that is operated by Altibox and owned by the partner. 6RD is a method we are considering for IPv6 deployment, mostly because our partners might not have the budgets to upgrade their infrastructure in thread with our IPv6 deployment. Having many prefixes, a multi-domain 6RD setup will be a hassle, both for prefix management at traffic management. However, this is not our prime reason to support this. We support this policy change mostly because it gives us the address space to needed to do good address aggregation in our partners networks. With a /32, we need to break down the allocations to smaller prefixes, hence making aggregation more difficult. The size of each partner vary greatly in number of end customers, and a larger prefix will help us keep the aggregations simple and unified. Best Regards Ragnar Anfinsen Senior Architect CPE Netinfrastructure Technology and Innovation Altibox AS Phone: +47 51 90 80 00 Phone direct: +47 51 90 82 35 Mobile +47 93 48 82 35 E-mail: ragnar.anfinsen@altibox.no Video phone: ragnar.anfinsen.altibox@video.altibox.net Skype: ragnar_anfinsen www.altibox.no