On Nov 8, 2010, at 5:53 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > 2) my concern with using 6rd for this purpose is that while automatic > tunneling by encoding the tunnel end point in the payload address is > convenient. offering a 'sensible' sized IPv6 prefix to end users is going to > be problematic. note this is purely a concern from a deployment perspective. > I have no doubt that you can _use_ 6rd this way. just because we _can_, > _should_ we? > can you give some examples of how you deliver e.g. /56 or /64 to end users, > using gi-6rd? (without expecting the SP to have a /16 of v6 space obviously).
This is a critical issue. - Alain. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
