Hello Ahmed,<br><br>Many thanks for forwarding the comparison table.<br><br>Temporary solutions are usefull in the transition phase. However, I would prefere emphasize even in the address allocation mechanism if a solution is temporary and should go away in long term. Therefore I fully agree with J�nos, the smallest address space the best in case of 6RD and other non-real-dual-stack method.<br>
<br>G�za<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ahmed Abu-Abed <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ahmed@tamkien.com">ahmed@tamkien.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 15px;" name="Compose message area">
<div><font face="Calibri">Hello,</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"></font>�</div>
<div><font face="Calibri">I am new to the Address Policy WG and this seems like
quite an old discussion.�I endorse assigning a /32 to LIRs regardless of
the IPv6 access method they use.</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"></font>�</div>
<div><font face="Calibri">Other than�to 6RD, TSP is another protocol (RFC
5572) that can be used to enable IPv6 to end users rapidly over intermediate
IPv4 nodes.�A useful comparison between TSP, 6RD and other IPv6 access
tunneling protocols�is shown in </font><font face="Calibri"><a title="http://gogoware.gogo6.com/4105/file.asp?file_id=942
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="http://gogoware.gogo6.com/4105/file.asp?file_id=942" target="_blank">http://gogoware.gogo6.com/4105/file.asp?file_id=942</a></font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"></font>�</div>
<div><font face="Calibri">As for IPv6 CPE and�server
gateways�availability, there are commercial solutions in the market that
implement�6RD and TSP for both sides of the tunnel.</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"></font>�</div>
<div><font face="Calibri">Regards,</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri">-Ahmed</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"></font>�</div>
<div style="font: 10pt Tahoma;">
<div><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font><br></div>
<div style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(245, 245, 245);">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="mailto:mattias.gyllenvarg@bredband2.se
CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:mattias.gyllenvarg@bredband2.se" target="_blank">Wyatt Mattias Gyllenvarg</a>
</div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:24 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="address-policy-wg@ripe.net" href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a> </div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> RE: [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for
6RD</div></div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div><br></div>Hi<br><br>We would like to weigh in here.<br>We feel that it
should be RIPEs policy to allocate ONE /32 to any LIR <br>who requests it for
6rd.<br><br>6rd is the only way for us to reach all our residential customers.
<br>Especially those in Municipal Networks that are very slow to invest in
<br>their networks and often do not have the competence and time to
<br>impelment IPv6.<br><br>Also, Cisco has not yet implemented even a small part
of the protective <br>mechanisms we rely on in IPv4 to secure our residential
networks. Many <br>of these features are required to meet the demands contracted
with the <br>customers. We cannot use native IPv6 until Cisco implements these
<br>features and we have tested and rolled them out on hundreds of
switches.<br><br>6rd bypasses all these issues. IF we can get a /32 for that
purpuse.<br><br>-- <br><br>Med V�nliga H�lsningar - Best regards<br>Mattias
Gyllenvarg<br>Network Operations
Center<br>Bredband2<br><br>---------------------- end of line
---------------------------<br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>