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

[Jan Oravec]

Bob,

> >I see no reason to not allow *ANY* prefix that has a legit purpose for
> >testing on the 6bone.  This should in no way break any existing asignments.

> I do agree with this. The 6bone is a test network, and as such would not be 
> doing a proper job if we didn't allow new ideas (and prefixes) to be used 
> for testing, as long as they don't mess up others (which Rob covers below).

How can you ensure, invalid prefixes will not get into production
networks ? 6bone is big enough to this be impossible - many AS does not
filter anything.

Microsoft does not need to announce 2003::/16 to test ShipWorm. They say,
they want to test it, not to provide 6bone/IPv6 connection thru ShipWorm.
If they want the second, they can SNAT 2003::/16 to some valid address or
wait for IANA assignment.

> The last communications on this with Randy Bush, our AD, are:

and also:

> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 15:26:36 -0800
> From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
> Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Testing Shipworm
> To: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>
> Cc: <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
> 
> > Our development team is getting ready to test Shipworm. Pending formal
> > IANA assignment, we are testing with the following parameters:
> > 
> >       Shipworm IPv6 service prefix: 2003::/16
> >       Shipworm IPv4 anycast address: 131.107.0.36
> >       Shipworm UDP port: 337
> 
> cool!  we should have great fun, as i am hijacking that same space for
> a different experiment.
> 
> isn't hijacking fun!!!  and our expenses will go down now that we no
> longer need the iana or registries.
> 
> oh, and next week, we're going to conduct a bunch of ipv4 routing
> experiments announcing various prefixes in 207.46.192.0/18.  i'm sure
> no one will mind.
> 
> randy

Best Regards,
 
Jan Oravec
XS26 - 'Access to IPv6'
jan.oravec@xs26.net