<!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>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>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. </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><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=remi.despres@free.fr
href="mailto:remi.despres@free.fr">R�mi Despr�s</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:10 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=gert@space.net href="mailto:gert@space.net">Gert
Doering</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=K.Smolderen@edpnet.net
href="mailto:K.Smolderen@edpnet.net">Kurt Smolderen</A> ; <A
title=address-policy-wg@ripe.net
href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 allocations for
6RD</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>Le 28 f�vr. 2011 � 15:20, Gert Doering a �crit :<BR><BR>>
Hi,<BR>> <BR>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:13:51AM +0100, Kurt Smolderen
wrote:<BR>>> I strongly support the idea of assigning a smaller prefix to
ISPs<BR>>> which are in a state of deploying IPv6 but need to use
transitional<BR>>> mechanism for (some of) their customers. Mark has
described one of<BR>>> the problems very clear in his email: if an ISP has
only a /32<BR>>> prefix and needs to use all 32 IPv4 bits in the 6rd
configuration,<BR>>> only a /64 can be delivered to the home instead of
the desired /56<BR>>> or /48. Needing all 32 bits is for instance the case
when an ISP<BR>>> offers internet connectivity to some of its customers
via a partnership<BR>>> with another ISP.<BR>> <BR>> Without
commenting on the general idea of allocating a larger chunk of<BR>> addresses
to ISPs, I want to make sure that the underlying facts are<BR>> presented
correctly.<BR>> <BR>> While RFC 5569 (the 6rd RFC) takes the "naive"
approach of blindly mapping<BR>> IPv4 <-> IPv6 using the whole 32bits,
it doesn't *have* to be that way<BR><BR>It doesn't have to, right.<BR>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.<BR>For ISPs that have been assigned several IPv4 prefixes (as many have
been), the "naive" approach remains the simplest one to
operate.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>RD<BR><BR><BR></BODY></HTML>