Yokohama Minutes (Was: RE: [6bone] Re: routing concern)

[Michel Py]

Bob and sixboners,

> Being perceived as part of the solution, not
> part of the problem,

Given the current thread going on the mailing list, I hope it has become
clear to everyone that the 6bone is indeed part of the solution.


> remembering that to do nothing, or to not reach
> agreement, runs the risk of other events
> overtaking the 6bone

That would be a shame, wouldn't it? As far as I am concerned, I will do
every thing in my power to prevent this from happening and I call for
each and every member of this community to rally behind Bob and bring
our 6bone to the next step in its evolution.


> In order to receive 6bone address services from an
> RIR as described here, each 6bone member must "join"
> that RIR, that is, enter into the appropriate membership
> or services agreement with the RIR.

Would this include end-sites? That would not be a problem for end-sites
such as mine, but what about pTLAs that have large pools of completely
automated tunnel brokers?


> There will be exceptions for unusual and new proposals
> per joint RIR and 6bone review and approval. A relevant
> example of this is one or more new strategies such as
> geographic or metro addressing.

Allow me to re-assert my support to the issue that was discussed before
and that Thomas Narten brought up recently here that unusual and new
proposals might be subject to unusual and new restrictions, especially
in terms of shelf life.


> joint RIR and 6bone review

I could use suggestions WRT cross-posting on several mailing lists when
sending my request.
 

> Allocations will be made on the clear and stated
> understanding that the prefix 3ffe::/16 has a limited
> lifetime. The expiration date of the prefix and the 6bone
> allocation made from this prefix is yet to be determined
> but will not be done by the RIR

Completely agree.

Michel.