[6bone] RFC2772 rewrite -- bigger scope goals

[Pekka Savola]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Bob Fink wrote:
> At 10:03 PM 11/14/2002 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >First, before we try to modify RFC2772, I think we need to have an idea
> >what we're trying to do:
> 
> I totally agree. That's why I called for ideas/issues etc. When I don't see 
> any comments on the list, however, I wonder if anyone cares (I do know that 
> you and some others do).
> 
> I would like to see an open and vigorous debate/discussion on what the 
> 6bone's role should become in the next phase of a transition to v6.

Exactly.

We could just revise 2772 to be up-to-date, but I'm not sure if that's 
useful if we don't take into the account how we feel 6bone is going to 
change in the coming years.
 
> >  - policy for new allocations and for new organizations only?
> >  - policy for new and old pTLA holders alike (any policy we agree on MUST
> >also by implemented by current pTLA's, as an item they agreed to in
> >RFC2772)?
> 
> I would think the latter. We have been skirting the issue of making 
> existing pTLA holders clean up or change for several years. I believe it is 
> time to get fairly specific.

Agreed.
 
> >Follow-up questions: is there a need for the policies for the old and the
> >new be the same (IMO not necessarily)?  What if don't conform to the new
> >rules, the revocation process?
> 
> We would need to address this. Peer group pressure, if there is a real 
> consensus, can be quite powerful, meaning we can yank prefixes.

Yes.

I believe there will have to be more text on the "non-conforming" case.  
For example, in the suggested text:

--8<--
   3. The pTLA Applicant MUST have a potential "user community" that
      would be served by its becoming a pTLA, e.g., the Applicant is a
      major provider of Internet service in a region, country, or focus
      of interest. Applicant must provide a statement and information in
      support this claim.

WOOP; proposed replacement for #3.
   3. The pTLA Applicant MUST intend fo provide ISP-like services 
      that woudl be served by its becoming a pTLA. e.g., the Applicant
      is a major provider of Internet service in a region.  Applicant 
      must provider a statement and information in support of this claim.
--8<--

==> would we try to get rid of pTLA's from systems which do not fulfill 
the criteria for #3 (it's much more strict I think -- good), or do 
something else?  This could be both a good thing and bad thing?

==> the similar (but to a lesser extent) applies to operators not 
implementing the new policy, due to many reasons (e.g. not even being or 
reading the 6bone mailing list!).
 
> >Only after there's some rough consensus on these, we can proceed to the
> >details in how to really revise RFC2772.
> 
> Agree, but, absent any other discussion, we will publish something to 
> address what Rob and others think need be done.
> 
> So let's have a wide ranging discussion in Atlanta on what is really best 
> to do with the 6bone.

Agreed.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords