<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16722"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>HI G�za,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Given IPv4's imminent depletion at the RIR level,
dual-stacking without tunneling or translation will be a short term solution
too. Pure dual-stacking, up to the consumer's premise, assumes you are laying
out dual-stack (with both IPv4 and IPv6 enabled) nodes from core up to
the CPE, and the customer is getting both IPv6 and IPv4 public addresses, and
the latter is very scarce. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>So for v4 and v6 to coexist for the next 10 years or so
we need tunneling, or some form of IPv6-only at the customers terminal with
translation to IPv4 if needed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Hence my /32 endorsement for all IPv6 access
methods.</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><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title="mailto:turchanyi.geza@gmail.com
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:turchanyi.geza@gmail.com">Turchanyi Geza</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:25 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=ahmed@tamkien.com href="mailto:ahmed@tamkien.com">Ahmed
Abu-Abed</A> ; <A
title="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net
CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=mattias.gyllenvarg@bredband2.se
href="mailto:mattias.gyllenvarg@bredband2.se">Wyatt Mattias Gyllenvarg</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ipv6-wg] RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for
6RD</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>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
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<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 size=3 face=Calibri></FONT><FONT size=3
face=Calibri></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: 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></BODY></HTML>