6bone Prequalification for Sub-TLA assignment

[Bob Fink]

Seth David,

At 01:59 AM 4/6/99 -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
>Bob Fink writes:
>
>> I don't really want us to delay on this prequalification any longer than it
>> takes to get an agreement in place. We do need to have Sub-TLAs assigned.
>
>On another note, is there an already accepted set of standards for
>qualification other than this prequalification procedure?  I.e. if someone
>wants to be a TLA or sub-TLA somewhat later on, is there a prospect of a clear
>way to do this other than via 6bone performance reports?

There is the registry draft we have already seen (that promped this 6bone
prequal process) that will be revved in the next week. Watch this list :-)


>It seems to me that, if all goes well, a flood of late adopters -- which is
>to say other-than-earliest-conceivable-adopters -- will appear sometime in
>the next year.  Do they continue to go through the 6bone prequalification
>process in order to receive IPv6 allocations, or is there to be another way
>in?

They could choose between the 6bone prequal or the RIR's own policy, at
least as long as the RIRs want to leave the 6bone prequal in place.
Currently is it estimated this would be in the 6-24 month range if it works
well.


Bob