(6bone) IETF-53 meeting (was (ngtrans) final ngtrans agenda forIETF-53 in Minneapolis)

[Michel Py]

Rob,

> Rob Rockell wrote:
> It would seem that businesses may drive this, despite recommendations from
> standards bodies (though I am not speaking for my business in this case; I
> can not guess where mine will go from a policy standpoint).

If I was the one to make the policy decision for Sprint, I think that I would want to continue the existing system. From Sprint's standpoint, what reasons could there be not to?

Michel.


->> Bill Manning wrote:
->> I am saddened by the thought that we move away from "where
->> everyone peers nicely with others" to something else.  Why
->> is this useful or desirable?

-> Michel Py wrote:
->It's not useful neither desirable. The point I will be trying to make is that it will happen at some point (don't get me wrong, I don't like it either, but the business model where everyone provides IPv6 transit for free is not going to last forever). In fact, some of the questions I plan to ask the floor for the purpose of triggering thinking about them are (roughly):
->1. Is the evolution of the IPv6 backbone (pushed by market forces) to a v4-like tiered system unavoidable?
->2. Is it the role of the 6bone or the IETF to think about it and possibly recommend something about it.