* Mark Townsley wrote:
As for the status of 6rd in the IETF, draft-townsley… is expired, and has been replaced by the Softwires Working Group document draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-01.txt.
I still reading this draft and try hard to find the benefit over announcing more specific routes in 2002::/16. Can you please hit me into the right direction?
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
I oppose handing out huge amounts of address space which is guaranteed to fit into a single prefix when removing protocol inherent holes. I'd favor inserting RPSL route objects below 2002::/16 by the RIR based on the corresponding IPv4 allocations. This process can be requested by the LIR and has a limited timescale (multiple renew allowed).