On 11/8/10 8:54 PM, Alain Durand wrote: > 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. I certainly could be, depending on how the math works out in terms of v4 aggregates and endpoints you are supporting. Aside of breaking the /64 barrier, I can imagine it not working out well in the majority of cases.
6rd's most significant strength is when it is in support of a very large number of sites. After the 6, 7 or 8 figure range in terms of number of sites 6rd is enabling, the advantages vs. stateful methods become quite apparent. Authors, for this use-case, how many gateways are we expecting to need to support? - Mark > - Alain. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
