[arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> 
> 
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2010, at 1:20 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> Is there any reason a large ISP might want more than one 6rd scheme?
>>> 
>>>     
>> Not that I can think of, and, the real problem with 6rd is that it doesn't matter what
>> size ISP you are... From the tiniest to the largest, they all consume the same
>> messed up prefix size for the same number of end bits to the end site.
>> 
>> So even a tiny ISP with 100 customers, if they want to give /56s to their end sites
>> will still consume 56-32 = /24.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>>   
> What about traffic engineering? It would be a lot nicer if return trip to my users could deterministically stay within region.
> 
> Joe

Permit me to rephrase... There is nothing that in my mind would justify the community
granting more than one 6rd prefix to an ISP, given the incredible waste inherent in the
first one. I would advocate that, instead, if you want to do TE with your 6rd, you should,
as an ISP, either disaggregate your 6rd prefix accordingly, or, you should move towards
a more native solution where you could get appropriate native allocations with much
less wastage.

Owen