Hi Mark, thanks for your response. I'm also happy to see a feasible way of doing IPv6 deployment being developed; however I think this audience (including me) needs some guidance on how to apply address policy in this particular case. I agree that 6rd probably won't be the long term way of deploying IPv6. However, what's being suggested now is that 6rd in an environment with non-contiguous allocations pretty much *requires* reserving 32 bits (plus 4-8 bits for user prefixes) of v6-space for every single ISP out there because the aggregate set of IPv4 allocations to that ISP can't be compressed. I don't think that was how it was intended or how it should work. I hope you can help us shed some light here. Best, Remco -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Mark Townsley Sent: donderdag 26 november 2009 12:00 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for 6RD All, My main goal with supporting 6rd is to see IPv6 deployed by Service Providers, preferably before the onslaught of CGNs leading to RFC1918 Private IPv4 as the new default Internet Access. As such, the fact that we are even having this conversation is rather encouraging. At the moment, 6rd accounts for the largest residential IPv6 Internet deployment to date. It's natural that some SPs are interested in replicating what has shown to work well for a neighboring SP. Not all of them want to go this route, but some do, and I'm thrilled as this very likely means a sooner IPv6 deployment in the world (at least among those SPs who see 6rd as their most viable alternative). I want to underscore here that we are not talking about forever allocating space away to a transition mechanism as was done with the /16 for 6to4, or the /32 for Teredo. Those address spaces will never be used for anything else, ever. The 6rd-related requests are, of course, for allocations to SPs that actually want to deploy IPv6 to their subscriber population in relative short order. One day, I hope that 6rd is not necessary for IPv6 deployment, but for the moment I'm firmly convinced that it is in a number of cases. Perhaps the WG could consider a temporary "early adopter" 6rd policy... e.g., for the next 3-5 years, those SPs that can show that native service is not economically viable for them, but commit that they can and will deploy with 6rd, will be allocated space necessary to get off the ground. At the end of this period, the WG could re-evaluate whether to abandon the more liberal policy in light of the ability to deploy natively at that time. As for the status of 6rd in the IETF, draft-townsley... is expired, and has been replaced by the Softwires Working Group document draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-01.txt. Many Thanks, - Mark This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.