Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment purpose
to check/audit 2) if you have one account using the 6rd, you probably would not
tear down the 6rd address block and return it to APNIC
I doubt APNIC has been successful at reclaim back IP allocations. I worry that
would be another 'legacy/historic block'.
----- Original Message ----
From: "fujisaki at syce dot net" <fujisaki at syce dot net>
To: yi_chu_01 at yahoo dot com
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Sent: Fri, August 6, 2010 3:55:57 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-087: IPv6 address allocation fordeployment
Thank you for your comment.
| I think any deployment decision should be done within the confines of the
| available resources, IP addresses included. If one does not have the
| justification and v6 addresses to deploy 6rd, then one should consider a
| different deployment approach, not the other way around.
| Any thoughts?
I can see what you're saying, but in that sense, large address block
holders (maybe large ISPs) can use any deployment protocols but small
ISPs can use only limited deployment protocols. I think address block
size should not become a limitation to select deployment protocols,
especially in the IPv6 deployment phase (so I added a condition
this proposal is for a limited time only).