6bone Architectural Changes? [RE: pTLA request for RMNET - review closes 23 April 2002]

[William F. Maton]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Pekka Savola wrote:

> In any case so that 6bone does not become dead weight that tries to pull
> IPv6 under the surface, we need to think of ways how to make IPv6
> connectivity work better than now.

I've been following the discussion for a little bit now, and I have to say
that I agree.  In striving to get better connectivity to other places, I've
had to "work around" the 6bone and just angle for what I could get, based
on the goodness of others.  (Which recalls the recent discussion of
charging charging for IPv6 transit, which might bring a form of order.)

This shouldn't be taken to heart or be meant to be taken as a criticism,
it's just based on personal exerience.

OK, so what?  Well, maybe the 6bone's entropy could be intrepreted as:

-a demand being made of it that it can no longer meet (Yo, ISP's!!!)
-experimentation that has run its course, and just been left to fester in
some areas, which is impacting others
-people are taking IPv6 seriously, but treating 6bone as an operational
network that isn't measuring up to preconceived notions of production
networks.

So how does one go about co-ordinating with some of the IPv6 "exchange
points", networks and others to "fix" this?

wfms