new 6bone pTLA prefix proposal, comments by 4 March 2002 please

[Michel Py]

> Bob Fink wrote:
> Please send comments to the 6bone list by 4 March 2002.

1,3,4,5 seems reasonable to me, although 1 will require
more than wishing it.

> We are seeing a recent increase in pTLA requests,

This is no surprise to me. In the orchestrated absence of an
IPv6 multihoming solution, it makes business sense to reserve
a prefix, becoming a pTLA and then a subTLA does not seem an
unreasonable cost to do business.

> 2. encouraging pTLA holders to apply for a production subTLA
> allocation when they move to a fully production mode; requiring
> chose charging for service to also apply for a production
> subTLA allocation; requiring the pTLA to be released within 6
> months (12 months?) of acquiring a subTLA unless justifying why
> the pTLA allocation is still needed/required.

I think this will be counter-productive, because it's exactly
what people that apply for a pTLA for the sole purpose of getting
their prefix advertised in the DFZ want. Once a RIR based
allocation has been granted to people that have no real intention
of becoming an ISP, it would be very difficult to take back, and
that would be going back into the routing goop we see today in v4.
Sure, it might clear some 6bone pTLAs, at the expense of permanent
subTLAs in the DFZ.

Michel.