If simplicity in IPv6 transition means initially
offering IPv6-over-IPv4 to subscribers while meeting 2 fundamental requirements,
namely end-user prefix delegation and commercial hardware CPE support, then
there are 3 protocols that can be used depending on the service provider
requirements: 6rd, TSP and L2TP.
If implementing 6rd, service
providers may need an allocation larger than /32 as the
6rd protocol embeds the users IPv4 address, or part there of, in their
IPv6 address.
Regards,
-Ahmed
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for
6RD
Le 28 févr. 2011 à 15:20, Gert Doering a écrit :
>
Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:13:51AM +0100, Kurt Smolderen
wrote:
>> I strongly support the idea of assigning a smaller prefix to
ISPs
>> which are in a state of deploying IPv6 but need to use
transitional
>> mechanism for (some of) their customers. Mark has
described one of
>> the problems very clear in his email: if an ISP has
only a /32
>> prefix and needs to use all 32 IPv4 bits in the 6rd
configuration,
>> only a /64 can be delivered to the home instead of
the desired /56
>> or /48. Needing all 32 bits is for instance the case
when an ISP
>> offers internet connectivity to some of its customers
via a partnership
>> with another ISP.
>
> Without
commenting on the general idea of allocating a larger chunk of
> addresses
to ISPs, I want to make sure that the underlying facts are
> presented
correctly.
>
> While RFC 5569 (the 6rd RFC) takes the "naive"
approach of blindly mapping
> IPv4 <-> IPv6 using the whole 32bits,
it doesn't *have* to be that way
It doesn't have to, right.
But, if
being native permits to deploy good IPv6 service to the masses before other
means to do it are available, being naive is better than being overly
purist.
For ISPs that have been assigned several IPv4 prefixes (as many have
been), the "naive" approach remains the simplest one to
operate.
Regards,
RD