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

[Joao Luis Silva Damas]

Bill,

in my first mail I said:

% >>Note: With these questions I am not questioning this particular
% >>case, just looking for clarification in the context of the 6Bone.

If people think this falls under A, by all means do allocate.

What I am looking for is a general view and a clarified definition of 
R&D in the context of the 6Bone, and my last mail expresses my 
opinion, one which I feel strongly about.

Cheers,
Joao

At 5:41 -0700 14/8/02, Bill Manning wrote:
>	using "metro-based" addressing is a novel spin on traditional
>	delegation techniques. to some degree, it is an outgrowth of
>	"normal" exchange point delegations, in that the prefix is
>	bound to a geographic region.  Such techniques have been proposed
>	in both the v4 and v6 communities.  This looks to be a serious
>	attempt to try it with v6.
>
>	that said, I don't see why this request -requires- 6bone space,
>	but then again, its more in the spirit of testing new address
>	management techniques than some of the 6bone delegations have
>	presented for justification.
>
>	IPv4 space has been delegated for similar addressing experiments
>	in the past and may be in future.  Some ended cleanly (net 39)
>	and some have taken more time (net 24).
>
>	Given the nature of the experiment in addressing on a metro-scale,
>	and that the 6bone is clearly experimental in nature, I'm in
>	favor of letting these folks get a delegation to see if the
>	social/engineering aspects will work.   If so, they should end
>	up renumbering into production space, just like the rest of the
>	experiments, when they wrap up.
>
>
>
>% I see,
>%   in that case I guess we better start creating the 4Bone, for newvie
>% ISPs in IPv4 and people developing new applications  that benefit
>% from IPv4 transport.
>%
>% Come on, these two cases were OK up to the point where people could
>% not get any other type of IPv6 addresses but now they are just normal
>% businness.
>%
>% Only case A really merits 6Bone addresses, because items in that
>% category would have the potential to disrupt an operating Internet
>% using IPv6 in some of its areas.
>%
>% I hope this group will be able to move on and take the step of
>% declaring IPv6 usable.
>%
>% Joao
>%
>% At 9:43 -0700 13/8/02, Bob Fink wrote:
>% >At 05:32 PM 8/13/2002 +0200, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:
>% >>Hi 6bone'rs,
>% >>
>% >>a bit of this message got me thinking and I would really like some
>% >>input from this group on the exact meaning and intention of R&D in
>% >>the context of the 6bone.
>% >>
>% >>Is R&D in the context of the 6bone:
>% >>
>% >>A) R&D in new IPv6 protocol or transition mechanism features?
>% >
>% >Yes, both.
>% >
>% >>B) R&D  as experimentation in the context of deployment within an
>% >>ISP or other network operator?
>% >
>% >Yes.
>% >
>% >>C) R&D un-related to IPv6, such as work done at an R&D institution
>% >>(University or corporate research center, for instance)?
>% >
>% >Nope.
>% >
>% >>D) R&D related to applications which might benefit from using IPv6
>% >>as transport?
>% >
>% >Yes.
>% >
>% >>Note: With these questions I am not questioning this particular
>% >>case, just looking for clarification in the context of the 6Bone.
>% >
>% >
>% >Thanks,
>% >
>% >Bob
>%
>% _______________________________________________
>% 6bone mailing list
>% 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
>% http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
>%
>
>
>--
>--bill
>_______________________________________________
>6bone mailing list
>6bone@mailman.isi.edu
>http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone