Announcing 2003::/16 during tests of "shipworm"

[Matthew Lehman]

Christian will have to give an official response on the current status from IANA, but my understanding is that there are no objections and we are waiting on a final response.  I also should say that we are working under a few (possibly incorrect assumptions):
 
1) The 6Bone is a research network developed for the main use of learning about and furthering the deployment of IPv6.  I haven't seen anything about production networks in it's charter, but I may have missed something.  We wouldn't have announced a non-assigned route in a production network.
2) We have put forth IETF drafts for comment of this protocol and applied for the address range from IANA.  While I agree that anyone can put forward a draft (or an RFC for that matter), it does undergo scrutiny from the Internet community and it was never our intention to hijack address space without going through the appropriate processes.
3) There is a large body of people that are interested in a NAT traversal mechanism for IPv6.
 
Sorry if we jumped the gun, we're just trying to do due diligence and test the protocol in a larger scale scenario in the right network.  I thought the 6Bone was the right place to do that.
 
-Matthew

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Paul Timmins [mailto:paul@timmins.net] 
	Sent: Thu 12/6/2001 10:57 PM 
	To: Jan Oravec 
	Cc: 6bone@ISI.EDU 
	Subject: Re: Announcing 2003::/16 during tests of "shipworm"
	
	

	At 01:18 AM 12/7/2001, Jan Oravec wrote:
	>On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 11:17:04PM -0500, Paul Timmins wrote:
	
	
	>I can also write some draft about tunneling IPv6 over proxy server or
	>anything other requiring another /16. It is as much necessary as Shipworm.
	>Really, there are some users with just connection to web proxy who may need
	>IPv6. Will you tolerate such "testing" without IANA agreement ?
	
	It's my understanding that IANA gave their consent, and just hasn't posted
	such yet. Can the microsoft guy confirm this?
	-Paul