[6bone] RFC2772 rewrite

[Robert J. Rockell]

->Regarding the 2772 rewrite, here's what comes to mind:
->* Should we have an upper bound in time in which one can operate a pTLA ?
->This will then stress the experimental nature of the allocation.

I would think that a periodic check on pTLA allocations, to make sure that
those who have pTLA allocations are still
	-using them
	-using them correctly

would be helpful.  Not sure to set a bound on the allocation.  For instance,
as I have limitations keeping me from deploying a production IPv6 service,
I would not want to be forced into using ARIN assigned space before I have
to (so I can delegate it correctly when the time comes).

->* Should we have people running a pTLA next to their RIR space return
->their allocation to 6BONE ?

Don't know how to treat this one.  I think it is ok for people to have both.
Perhaps we could try to push the RIR's to only delegate space if the company
intends to use it :)

->* I think we should verify the existance of a founded company that will
->be the holder of the allocation. This might come in handy when/if we
->have a doubtful indivudual/company requesting space. I do not support
->individuals having globally routable IPv6 space.

Agreed. We should put something specific into the qualifications.

->* Should there be any form of Common Sense Peering, eg recommendations
->for filtering and tunneling.

Agreed.  Perhaps we should come up with quantitative numbers for tunnel
latency, AS-hops, etc...  Or should we just use generalized guidelines?  As
a more militant member of the 6bone, I'd like something quantitative, so we
can take action when a pTLA violates the rules :)

->* Should we seperate the 6BONE cloud from the production IPv6 cloud ? This
->is not really an RFC2772 issue, but does come to mind.

Don't know that we can influence this from the NGTRANS working group...


->While the Netherlands is getting more and more IPv6 aware (20 or so commercial
->entities out of 140 at AMS-IX are connecting right now), and 'real'
->transit providers start offering service, I cannot yet offer stable IPv6
->connectivity outside of this AMS-IX cloud. I have heard sounds of operators
->filtering out 3ffe::/16 due to its impact on general availablility of
->IPv6 to their customers. This deserves discussion!

So we fix the 6bone, or we cancel it... I think we should fix it.  There is
still transition testing that needs to take place, and it is easier to
renumber/re-build/re-deploy the 6bone than it is to do the same with a
production network :)

->Also, what about the previous pTLA allocations and general database
->tidiness. Jeroen Massar has, on numerous occasions, brought old stuff to
->our attention, and perhaps his point on us cleaning the DB up is valid.
->Should people that have not been announcing their pTLA have it revoked ?

Agreed.

->Just some thoughts to kick off the discussion.
->
->groet,
->Pim
->
->--
->---------- - -    - - -+- - -    - - ----------
->Pim van Pelt                 Email: pim@ipng.nl
->http://www.ipng.nl/             IPv6 Deployment
->-----------------------------------------------
->