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

[Pekka Savola]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jan Oravec wrote:
> > I could see this being useful to me. Hopefully the standard that is 
> > published is the standard that Microsoft sticks to when implementing this 
> > in a release of their OS, so it can be implemented by other platforms.
> > My god, I'm not only thanking Microsoft, I'm sticking up for them too. What 
> > is this world coming to?
>
> I am not against Microsoft, just I don't like when *ANYONE* (not just
> Microsoft) is breaking the rules.
> 
> 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 ?

I don't understand your point; IANA agreement is not a short process.  
What's the drawback here?  I wouldn't tolerate this kind of testing if it
conflicted with any current, valid prefixes, thus degrading service.  
Here, there is no service loss for anyone, quite the contrary.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords