In message <alpine.deb.2.02.1311290622170.1...@uplift.swm.pp.se>, Mikael Abrahamsson writes: > On Fri, 29 Nov 2013, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > You can hand out /48 as easily with 6rd as you can natively. > > > > It's only when the ISP is lazy and encodes the entire IPv4 address > > space into 6rd thereby wasting most of the IPv6 address space being > > used for 6rd that a /60 appears to be generous. > > You're contradicting yourself here.
What contradiction? You need to break up the IPv6 address allocation for both PD and 6rd. I would say PD is slightly more complicated than 6rd as you also want to optimise routing more with PD. With 6rd you do the optimisation using the IPv4 addresses. > Yes, you're right about the technical > solution, but it's not as easy (you need backend systems). Also, not all > products support the variability of subnet lengths that the standard > allows. So who is shipping cr*p that claims to support RFC 5969 yet doesn't all arbitary size 6rd domains? The point of have a standard is so equipement from different manufactures can work together. A CPE device that can't accept all legal values should be thrown in the bin. > So if you're not mapping the entire space (actually some products only > allow /32 IPv6 space) 1-1 you're making the whole solution harder due to > complexity in your backend system plus you're limiting the amount of > customer gear that will support the solution. I claim bovine excrement on customer gear. Show me where the 6rdPrefixLen is defined to be 32? Even with RFC 5569 it was up to 32 and the IPv4MaskLen is 0. > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
