[6bone] Re: routing concern

[John Fraizer]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Michel Py wrote:

> > Ronald van der Pol wrote:
> > There is a problem when production services are being
> > reached via a network which is not stable (like 6bone is
> > today). I am not saying it is bad that 6bone is not
> > stable. I just think 6bone should become a network for
> > doing IPv6 related experiments only, no production.
> 
> This is the way it's supposed to be already. The 6bone should *not* be
> used for production. The problem is that people actually use it for
> production.


"12 January 2000

The 6bone is an IPv6 Testbed that is an outgrowth of the IETF IPng project
that created the IPv6 protocols intended to eventually replace the current
Internet network layer protocols known as IPv4.

The 6bone is currently a world wide informal collaborative project,
informally operated with oversight from the "NGtrans" (IPv6
Transition) Working Group of the IETF.

The 6bone started as a virtual network (using IPv6 over IPv4
tunneling/encapsulation) operating over the IPv4-based Internet to support
IPv6 transport, and is slowly migrating to native links for IPv6
transport.

The initial 6bone focus was on testing of standards and implementations,
while the current focus is more on testing of transition and operational
procedures.

The 6bone operates under the IPv6 Testing Address Allocation."


What I gather from the above, is that the 6bone, for all intents and
purposes, is 3ffe::/16.  No production services living on 3ffe::/16, no
problem.  "Production" in my book is COMMERCIAL.

If you define "6bone" otherwise, please explain.  If you define production
otherwise (in the context of 6bone vs production) please explain.

---
John Fraizer              | High-Security Datacenter Services |
EnterZone, Inc            | Dedicated circuits 64k - 155M OC3 |
http://www.enterzone.net/ | Virtual, Dedicated, Colocation    |