On 10/26/11 12:05 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
I also feel that 6RD justifies a /32, it doesn't justify a /30 or alike.
No. 6RD in it's natural form "needs" /24 in order to give /56 to users.
Yes, "needs" indeed. It's not a MUST though, it's just operationally easier.
Exactly. But... (there's always a but), operators are yelling about small margins, about not having money to invest in more complex operations, about operations overhead and so on and so on. Personally, I would go with multiple 6RD domains and be done with it. Again, this are facts, complains and questions we get from real life on the operational field.
With 6RD you can take a IPv6 /36, map 8 bits of IPv4 into a IPv4 /24, map 24 bits into IPv6, and now you have that /60 you wanted for your customers. Yes, you "wasted" an IPv4 /24, but if you're that big so you need avoid doing 6RD on IPv4 /16 level (map 16 bits of IPv4 into a single IPv4 6RD relay address), give that relay a /40, then you can give your customers a /56, "wasting" a single IPv4 address per /16 with some additional configuration.
Just to give some perspective if someone still thinks one can't deploy 6RD without mapping all of IPv4 space into IPv6. It's not true, it's just more complex.
Yes. Easily possible, but not heavily practiced in real life. Least possible complexity, least possible operational overhead. If we get them this option, IPv6 service gets deployed. Note the usage of the word "service", not "native" :) Cheers, Jan