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

[itojun@iijlab.net]

>The only ways I could see to get rid of the "cruft" of 6bone would appear 
>to be like:
>
> 1) Disband 6bone.  (This may not help in a global scale anyway.  But
>how??)
>
> 2) RFC2772 policy changes that "transit" MUST NOT be provided over
>non-local tunnels unless there are strong reasons to do so (and enumerate
>some reasons).
>
> 3) People who are serious or semi-serious about IPv6 create a blacklist
>of certain 6bone AS's: AS-PATHs which contain these AS's as non-terminal
>members are rejected.  This blacklist would include all 6bone "toy"
>transits.  This would kill legal traffic too, though.. A drawback here is
>that everyone these serious IPv6 people want to connect to should use
>similar policy so that return traffic should not be "blackholed".
>
> 4) People who are serious about IPv6 refuse to talk to any 6bone
>addresses, use the blacklist above, and an additional blacklist of AS's
>which have only 6bone addresses. (Or a whitelist..). This is possibly
>sufficient to keep off the "6bone pollution".
>
> 5) Others?

	assuming that pTLA requesters are doing so as a pre-qualification to
	get sTLA, how about this:

	- when applying to 6bone pTLA, one need to indicate intent to natively
	  peer with at least one peer (at IX, or as an ISP transit customer)
	  within certain amount of time (like 6 months)

itojun