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

[Bob Fink]

Michel,

At 08:25 PM 8/1/2002 -0700, Michel Py wrote:
>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.

I hope so. We will need to develop a system soon with the help of the IETF 
community to determine the reasonable lifetime of the 6bone.


> > 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.

Well, this is not a hand wave. As I mentioned above, we need to work out a 
mutual process with the IETF community to decide the 6bone's future. The 
RIRs were clear to me that it isn't their place to ever try to determine this.


> > 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?

I believe this only applies to the pTLA level as they would get their 
allocation from the RIR. Nets and end-sites below the pTLAs get their 
services from the pTLA (or pNLA).


> > 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.

These will always need very special review and understanding as well as 
strong support from the IETF that it is responsible, relevant and useful 
(at a minimum).


> > 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.


Thanks for your comments. Hopefully I can get the written proposal I used 
to prepare the presentation, and some minutes from the lunchtime meeting in 
Yokohama, out soon.


Bob