On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:45 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > No. It’s not AT&T’s 6rd deployment. I can’t get a 30Mbps service from AT&T.
Silly me! Indeed, they are deploying within a /32, leaving only a /64 for your RG. 6rd Prefix = 2602:100::/32 Border Relay Address = 68.114.165.1 6rd prefix length = 32 IPv4 mask length = 0 Good they will move to dual-stack. If they find more users wanting to use 6rd and more gateways knowing what to do with more than a single /64, they should be able to get space from ARIN such that giving more than a /64 with 6rd is still possible (even with a single domain). We worked very hard on making sure that was possible at the policy level. Thanks for the pointer, I was unaware of this one. - Mark > It’s actually listed as a trial, so it’s not known to me how long it will be > this way, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to flame or complain about an > MSO’s trial IPv6 6rd service, much as I might enjoy that. They say that they > are headed to dual stack. But my personal philosophy is not to believe in > promises of what will be (especially promises that have no date or timeline > provided), and to accept the high likelihood that the current state of > affairs will continue to exist for the next several years. > But since the following info is available publicly on the Internet, I’ll > point you to the following link: > http://www.myaccount.charter.com/customers/Support.aspx?SupportArticleID=2665 > Specific 6rd trial info is on this page under the heading “Preparing for > IPv6”. > > This is clearly labeled as a trial, and I would rather have them commended > for offering this, than lambasted for the fact that it doesn’t meet > expectations of individuals in the IETF. I see no need to talk to them about > it. I have no complaint with it. > Barbara > > If she is on the 6rd deployment I think she is, the gateway itself is getting > a /60 from 6rd. The limitation is not 6rd or the ISP trying to be stingy per > se. The limitation is that the gateway currently isn't sub-delegating to > subtended routers, and the LAN ports are bridged and served by the same /64 > anyway. > > The current policies in ARIN and RIPE are such that there really is no excuse > for an ISP to limit to /64 with 6rd, even without resorting to multiple > domains. I don't know of any large 6rd deployments that are limiting > themselves to /64 within the mapping rule itself today, but I've stopped > keeping track now as it has become rather widely understood and available. > > - Mark > > On Mar 6, 2013, at 3:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 7:03 AM, STARK, BARBARA H <[email protected]> wrote: > As a home user who currently gets a /64 (via 6rd) from my ISP, I find this > recommendation insufficient. > > Who is the ISP? Do you know why they are only handing out /64? Have you tried > to talk to them? > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
