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

Tony Hain alh-ietf at tndh.net
Fri Oct 15 11:56:54 EDT 2010

Owen DeLong wrote:
> ...
> If you can get 6rd to fit in  single /16, then, perhaps we 
> could consider allowing it to be permanent.

That is called 6to4... ;)   Seriously, if every ISP would just operate a
6to4 relay announcing 2002:????::/24-40 matching their IPv4 prefix length on
the IPv6 side, we wouldn't need 6rd (yes this violates the stupid one-liner
in the RFC). The number of prefixes in the IPv6 routing table would be no
different than if 6rd is put into a special block intended to be turned off
years from now. The real 'value' of 6rd over 6to4 is that an ISP can have a
single prefix covering both their 6rd and dual-stack customers, and the
outside world doesn't need to know. The downside is that each RIR gets to
stand in the way of 6rd deployments with an enormous wall of FUD about
burning through 4B instances the size of the IPv4 Internet in less than 20

Warning simple math --->  ~ 2/3 of the population of the planet could run
their own 6rd /32 and there would still be addresses in the pool ... 

> However, if ~3,000 ARIN members deploy 6rd /24s, then, you're 
> talking about the vast majority of an entire /12 just in the 
> ARIN region.

And the problem with that is??? There are more /12's to distribute, so if
every RIR dedicates a /12 to 6rd in addition to their existing /12, IANA
still has 502 in the first /3. 


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list