[6bone] proposal for transfer of 6bone address management responsibilities to RIRs

[Matteo Tescione]

Hi to all,
according to me pay even a few membership to Rirs means that noone will ask
for 6bone space, only for production space.
Moving 6bone address under rirs means closing 6bone, I don't think ipv6 is
so widely deployed yet, I'm running a TB, if I have to pay for address space
I had to be paid from my customers.
Definitely I don't think it's time to think closing 6bone.
Best regards,

Matteo Tescione
Ipv6 Dept.
COMV6 - Italy


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Fink" <fink@es.net>
To: "6BONE List" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: [6bone] proposal for transfer of 6bone address management
responsibilities to RIRs


> Michel, and all 6bone Folk,
>
> At 08:28 PM 8/20/2002 -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> >6boners,
> >
> >Please keep in mind that the choice that we are facing is *not* between
> >keeping the 6bone as-is and transferring it to RIRs.
> >
> >The choice we are facing is between transferring it to RIRs transferring
> >it to v6ops.
>
> Not so. Sorry I didn't clear that up earlier. I'll try to do so here.
>
> The 6bone has been under the operational and policy oversight of ngtrans
> since a few months after it was formed in 1996 until recently. During the
> last year that oversight has diminished due to pressures of the primary
> work of ngtrans. When the ngtrans chairs started to re-charter ngtrans,
> Randy Bush (the ngtrans IESG AD) made it clear that he didn't think the
> 6bone belonged in a new ngtrans charter. Note there was no discussion of
> where it might sit.
>
> Then just recently discussions started about a new v6ops working group.
> There was no intention to include the 6bone oversight function in its
charter.
>
> Independent of 6bone operational policy oversight was the issue of the
> 6bone being an address registry outside of the now agreed IPv6 address
> management and registry that the RIRs have developed (with very wide
> participation from the Internet community). This causes problems for two
> reasons:
>
> One is that if the 6bone is allowed to be a high-level address registry
not
> under the scrutiny and agreements of the Internet community registry
> processes (i.e., those of the RIRs), others can make the case that they
> should be as well. This will become more and more of a problem as time
goes
> on and will likely cause the 6bone's address authority (over 3FFE://16) to
> be withdrawn earlier than might otherwise be appropriate.
>
> Second is that the RIRs have oversight over the ip6.arpa reverse DNS
> registry. As IPv6 deployment evolves it becomes increasingly more
important
> that 6bone networks can register in the ip6.arpa path. Note that this does
> not mean that you can't use ip6.int, just that ip6.arpa will become
> prevalent in usage and the 6bone must have access to it. It seems unlikely
> that the 6bone will be able to use ip6.arpa without some form of agreement
> with the RIRs.
>
> A few other issues.
>
> In the proposal there is emphasis on keeping the cost of getting 6bone
> prefixes from the RIRs as low as possible. The RIRs, as I, are sensitive
to
> the fact that many are unable to spend much (or possibly anything) to
> participate. I would still like to see a way that those claiming they
can't
> afford even a nominal/low fee be able to qualify for some special aid.
This
> had been discussed briefly but there was no resolution on how it might
happen.
>
> The future of the 6bone 3FFE::/16 address block authority and its
> continuance will not be in RIR hands. Where it will be is not obvious yet,
> but I assume somewhere at the IETF policy level. This will be explored in
> the coming months.
>
> Where operational and policy oversight will come from is an interesting
> issue. Although in theory it came, for a while, from ngtrans (as mentioned
> above), this wasn't really true in practice. It really came from the
> collective 6bone community and its own consensus about what worked and
what
> didn't. I expect this will continue. The RIRs also expect that the 6bone
> community will continue to make decisions about its operations and
policies.
>
> On keeping the 6bone separate from the production IPv6 Internet, I believe
> that to be seldom if ever necessary, and that the decision to do so is a
> local one for any network based on what is being done. The 6bone is part
of
> the greater IPv4 and IPv6 integrated Internet and must be for it to be of
> value. Just as we have poorly managed IPv4 networks that cause trouble for
> the greater whole, the 6bone has no monopoly on poor or perfect service
> among IPv6 networks. When we have problems with any IPv6 network we should
> all take steps to get them fixed or isolate them. This is not a
> 6bone-specific issue.
>
>
> We (me and RIRs) appreciate your comments as they do help us understand
the
> issues. Keep them coming!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone