Talk:IPv6 rapid deployment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The naming of this article is a bit odd.
I think it should be named "6rd" (most commonly used) or possibly "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures" -- (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. DrKiernan (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

IPv6 rapid deployment6rd6rd is the name usually used to refer to it. And it would fit with the naming of the other IPv6 transition technologies (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I oppose. 6rd would be ambiguous. --bender235 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What would it be ambiguous with? Ucucha 17:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:JARGON (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That doesn't necessarily apply to article titles, otherwise articles on technical terms or terms of art would have to new titles invented for them. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Gets twice the GHits and the article uses "6rd" as the title. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Referred just as such in some books, e.g. [1], but the full name is IPv6 rapid deployment on IPv4 infrastructures (6rd) [2] [3]. There aren't many secondary sources about this, so we should probably wait for more to appear before drawing any conclusions... Pcap ping 10:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


This draft proposal only has 4 citations [4], so it's doubtful it needs a Wikipedia page at all. The book I found above indicated it's just a minor modification of 6to4, so a smerge/redirect may be more appropriate anyway. Pcap ping 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I imagine the it has not been cited much in academia as it has only been an informational RFC for a month, and the IETF standards process has not finished. But I do not see how this would not be notable, and I think the sources show that. If you just want to merge it with 6to4, please add a Merge template instead. -- (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Technically 6in4, 6to4 and 6rd all use the same packet format. The difference comes in how they are administered and addressed. I think each scheme is different enough to deserve it's own article but I could see it being argued either way. Plugwash (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Prefix 64 - not enough adresses[edit]

"Although these 64-bit prefixes are sufficient for sites that have only one LAN, as typical for residential and SoHo sites, it is not enough for large enterprise sites". WHAT? IPv4^2 is not enough? are you crazy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No enterprise could work on a single flat LAN, no matter of how many computers could be numbered in that LAN. Actually I don't think you will ever see more than several hundreds hosts in a single LAN in practice, so much for your 64 bits :) Mro (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what prevents the owner of the xxxx:xxxx:xxxx prefix from subnetting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ipv6 stateless autoconfiguration requires a /64 allocated to each subnet and is the only IPv6 autoconfiguration system supported by windows XP. So if you have XP boxes on your network and don't want to have to configure them manually from the command line you need a /64 for every subnet. Plugwash (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)