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

[Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>]

Thanks for your detailed comments.

Tony Hain wrote:
> Problems:
>
> 1) 'pure' tag makes a questionable assumption in light of unresolved and
> continuing RIR discussions about changing the status of 240/4.
>   
OOPS
There is a typo: 1110 as most significant bits is 224/4 (not 240/4 as
written once).
Apologies.
> 2) causes ISPs to allocate unnaturally large prefixes to pops to accommodate
> a mostly unused 32-bit field
>   
See the answer to Gert Doering:
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00345.html
> 3) the 3.5 discussion about accepting prefixes from other ISPs that might
> contain a 6rd anycast is just wrong. First there is no way for an ISP to
> know which prefix its peer is using for a 6rd relay. Second, there is no
> reason to preclude it since the IPv6 6rd prefix would not match for their
> sites, and the local CPE would not be configured for the other ISP's
> anycast, so the local CPE would never be attempting to send to the other
> ISP's 6rd anycast relays even if there is a route. 
>
>   
There must be a misunderstanding.
An ISP never needs  to know 6rd anycast addresses of other ISPs.
Routes an ISP has to make sure to refuse, if received by accident or
malevolence, are routes to their OWN 6rd anycast prefix.
It can be made clearer in the next version.


RD