Re: REVIEW NEEDED: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Thanks Tim, just one follow-up


> Why use 6to4 or a broker for a large enterprise when a specific tunnel
> can be set up?

Indeed, that is better if possible. But with a disobliging ISP, it
might not be possible.

> > > > >  ...Use of
> > > > >  6to4 also prevents the enterprise adopting aggregatable global IPv6
> > > > >  addressing from the outset.
> >
> > > True... but so what? It's a solution you use only as long as you have
> > > to, and then you switch to an aggregatable prefix. This wouldn't affect
> > > internal network usage at all, apart from updating the prefix.
>
>
> Well, "apart from updating the prefix" menas a whole site renumbering
> exercise, and that's uncessary pain when you can use 2001: space from an
> ISP who is quite likely to be your future native IPv6 provider.

Again, that doesn't work with a disobliging ISP. And we just *have* to
make prefix updates a feasible option for IPv6; otherwise we will slowly
slide back to a pre-CIDR state as sites wave money at ISPs.

    Brian