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

[Bob Fink]

Michel,

At 09:44 AM 8/21/2002 -0700, Michel Py wrote:
>Bob,
>
> >> Michel Py wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > Bob Fink wrote:
> > Not so. Sorry I didn't clear that up earlier. I'll try to
> > do so here.
>
> > Then just recently discussions started about a new v6ops
> > working group. There was no intention to include the 6bone
> > oversight function in its charter.
>
>My point, precisely.
>
>Assuming (reasonable likeliness) that v6ops will be created and ngtrans
>will indeed conclude my understanding was that the 6bone oversight will
>be (short-term) either:
>- By default transferred to v6ops, who does not care about it and could
>dump the 6bone concept as a whole.
>- Be transferred into a void.
>(none of which is good, IMHO)
>
> > 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.
>
>WRT what I wrote above, I think the "where it will be" is one of the
>important parts that is missing as of today, IMHO. If you prefer, the
>lack of a "home" for the 6bone has "catastrophe" written all over it.
>
>In other words, I don't think we have much of a choice but make this
>transfer of address management to the RIRs work.
>
> > 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.
>
>I think it was true in the sense that you were co-chair of ngtrans at
>the time.
>
> > 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.
>
>Bob, have you thought about the 6bone being a WG of its own (possibly
>outside the O&M area) or something similar? There are things such as the
>much discussed "STRICT" prefix-list and related topics that could be
>done more formally.

When I tried to do this in '96 it was placed into ngtrans by the then 
responsible ADs. I'm not sure what is really acceptable now, but intend to 
pursue it.


Thanks,

Bob

> > 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.
>
>Strongly agree.
>
>Michel.