[6bone] pTLA request by Euro6IX project for exchange experimentation - review closes 3 Sep 2002

[Michel Py]

Bob,

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> The point I am trying to make here is related to the Teredo
>> request and the points that Thomas and myself brought back
>> then. I was wondering if Euro6IX should be placed in the same
>> situation.

> Bob Fink wrote:
> Again, I don't thinks so, but would like folks to have a
> chance to comment.

Thanks for asking. In this specific case, I do not think that Euro6IX
should be treated differently than any other pTLA as there are no
consequences on the global routing table.


>> Reading Joao's post that just came in, I think that it might
>> be a good time to clarify/change the definition of pTLA and
>> write the definition of "special purpose" 6bone block. Please
>> keep this in mind when finishing the RIR proposal.

> Don't understand what you have in mind here.

As Jordi mentioned before (answering Nicolas' question), the reason
Euro6IX did not get a prefix from their RIR is because they don't have a
legal entity. This might become an issue when the 6bone goes into RIR's
hands.

Just my brain spinning freely, you might want to consider at least three
categories of requests for the future 6bone/RIR:

- pTLAs as we know them today.
- Works like a pTLA (read: only one route in the global routing table)
but without a legal entity, such as Euro6IX.
- "Special purpose" such as geo addresses that need to be studied on a
per-case basis.

Note that one of the reasons I bring this legal entity issue is
self-serving: I don't know what I would do if I needed one to send you
the request for geo addresses that I am preparing ;-)


Michel.