Re: 6rd - Rapid Deployment on existing IPv4 infrastructures - a newapproach

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-02-13 22:52, Remi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:52:07 +0100, Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
> wrote:
>> On my home LAN, it doesn't suck at all. It just works to my complete
>> satisfaction.
>> Clearly it is desirable to do much better than this /64 first step, but
>> one step after another is sometimes a good way to progress.

As long as any ISP deploying /64 to SOHO customers also has a way to
provide a /48 to any customer who wants to subnet their network, at
negligible extra cost, this could be OK. But customers who need /48
(or /56) must not be blocked.
> 
> The IETF has a long history of doing "provisional" "for a short time"
> protocols that eventually last much much longer than intended. NATs are
> one. And 6to4... it was standardized over 5 years ago, and we are only now
> realizing that it does not work as well as intended. 

As far as I know, nobody has deployed it as intended by RFC 3056.

   Brian