26 Nov
2009
26 Nov
'09
6:09 p.m.
Hi,
I see you point, that more specifics of 2002::/16 are disallowed by RFC3056, but this can easily be changed. 6rd uses the same way to modify RFC3056: It requires a huge parallel prefix (and route) per ISP.
In order to overcome the situation I submitted a draft to the IETF. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-donnerhacke-softwire-ipv6-6to4-00.txt
Yeah, nice idea. Why not have router implementations do that by default? We just have hit 300k routes in IPv4, I see no reason why we should not have that amount in IPv6 as well. Bernhard