[6bone] RE: Content of 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446
noor al huda
baby_boo_u@hotmail.com
Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:08 +0400
<html><div style='background-color:'><P><BR>well everyone..I am a bit confused here...if the IPv6 and 6bone are under experimentation uptil now..how come there are IPv6 routers or 6bone routers available?..</P>
<P>as it was mentioned in the internetnew.com website...the pentagon suspects that IPv6 will be presented publically in the year 2008..(with all my respect to you all.)..</P>
<P>could some one clarify this to me please?</P>
<P>thanx, </P>
<P>noor_al_huda<BR></P><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV>Keep in touch <IMG height=19 src="http://graphics.hotmail.com/i.p.emwink.gif" width=19></DIV>>From: 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu >Reply-To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >Subject: 6bone digest, Vol 1 #446 - 13 msgs >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:10:09 -0800 (PST) > >Send 6bone mailing list submissions to > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu > >You can reach the person managing the list at > 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of 6bone digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (J. Miracle) > 2. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Nicolas DEFFAYET) > 3. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Gert Doering) > 4. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Pim van Pelt) > 5. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Christian Nickel) > 6. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December > 2003 (Bob Fink) > 7. Cleansing 6bone (Was: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003) (Jeroen Massar) > 8. Re: doubt about protocol independent Ping. (Antonio Querubin) > 9. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Dan Reeder) > 10. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Antonio Querubin) > 11. Re: pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 (Tim Chown) > 12. Re: winding down and returns? (Tim Chown) > >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:46:50 -0500 >From: "J. Miracle" <MATRIX@MIRACLE1.NET>>To: Nicolas DEFFAYET <NICOLAS.DEFFAYET@NDSOFTWARE.NET>>Cc: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA
request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 >Organization: Miracle1 Systems > >On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:47:20 +0100 >Nicolas DEFFAYET <NICOLAS.DEFFAYET@NDSOFTWARE.NET>wrote: [Message-ID: 1071690440.26093.153.camel@w1-aub.fr.corp.ndsoftware.com] > >ND> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: >ND> 6bone Folk, >ND> >ND> > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully >ND> > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December >ND> > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. >ND> > >ND> > <HTTP: www.ctn1.com>>ND> > >ND> > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan >ND> > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if >ND> > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no >ND> > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 >ND> > December. >ND> >ND> The community must be open about this request. > >I believe the community has been very open with this request. > >ND> >ND> This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. >ND> Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote >ND> IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the >ND> IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this >ND> request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high >ND> quality IPv6 services to their customers. >ND> > >I believe upholding the policies on which the 6BONE was founded for making any decisions related >to this manner is exactly what we should expect, and exactly what we got. Might I ask why you say >they could offer 'high quality' IPv6 services with only one IPv6 transit uplink? > >ND> Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. >ND
> There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll >ND> about it. > >If pTLA requests don't conform to RFC2772 they should not be allocated a pTLA. > >ND> >ND> I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help >ND> CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. >ND> > >If CTN1 is truly a partner of NDSOFTWARE why are you not allocating them address space. >ND was allocated a /32 for this purpose, were they not? > >ND> Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, >ND> (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer >ND> free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... >ND> >ND> Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. >ND> >ND> Best Regards, >ND> >ND> -- >ND> Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware >ND> NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ >ND> FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ >ND> EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ >ND> >ND> _______________________________________________ >ND> 6bone mailing list >ND> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >ND> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > >Thanks, >J. Miracle > >--__--__-- > >Message: 2 >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 >From: Nicolas DEFFAYET <NICOLAS.DEFFAYET@NDSOFTWARE.NET>>To: "J. Miracle" <MATRIX@MIRACLE1.NET>>Cc: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >Organization: NDSoftware >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:17:19 +0100 > >On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 21:46, J. Miracle wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:47:20 +0100 > > Nicolas DEFFAYET <NICOLAS.DEFFAYET@NDSOFTWARE.NET>wrote: > > ND> > > ND> This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > > ND> Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > > ND> IPv6 usage and is not g
ood for the community. CTN1 want promote the > > ND> IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this > > ND> request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high > > ND> quality IPv6 services to their customers. > > ND> > > > > I believe upholding the policies on which the 6BONE was founded for making any decisions related > > to this manner is exactly what we should expect, and exactly what we got. Might I ask why you say > > they could offer 'high quality' IPv6 services with only one IPv6 transit uplink? > >They will have a second IPv6 transit uplink when they have a pTLA. The >second transit provider don't want open BGP session without pTLA/sTLA. > > > ND> Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > ND> There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > ND> about it. > > > > If pTLA requests don't conform to RFC2772 they should not be allocated a pTLA. > >Please read the archive before ! >When you have pTLA allocated with unassigned ASN, only one contact >person,... Are this pTLA conform to RFC2772 ? Why they have been >allocated ? > > > ND> > > ND> I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help > > ND> CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. > > ND> > > > > If CTN1 is truly a partner of NDSOFTWARE why are you not allocating them address space. > > ND was allocated a /32 for this purpose, were they not? > >It's not a problem of address space size, when you request a pTLA it's >for be independent and present in worldwide routing table. > >A lot of pTLA allocated have never make end-user assignement... >Why a pTLA request for make end-user assignement must be denied because >the requester can use the upstream address space ? > >-- >Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware >NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndso
ftware.net/ >FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ >EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 3 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:26:57 +0100 >From: Gert Doering <GERT@SPACE.NET>>To: Nicolas DEFFAYET <NICOLAS.DEFFAYET@NDSOFTWARE.NET>>Cc: Bob Fink <BOB@THEFINKS.COM>, 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu>, > Marc GOMEZ <MG@CTN1.COM>>Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > >Hi, > >On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:47:20PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > The community must be open about this request. > > > > This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > > Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > > IPv6 usage > >It won't promote *6bone* usage, and we don't *want* to promote 6bone. > >6bone is dead, face it. A number of the bigger european NRENs do not even >route 3FFE space anymore. > >[..] > > Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > about it. > >Nothing in CTN1's setup fulfill's proper technical standards for an >IPv6 pTLA holder. > >[..] > > Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, > > (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer > > free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... > >Just take upstream space then. CTN1 could use some from NDSOFTWARE, >for example. > >(Just to drive home the point: 6bone space will *not* provide quality >IPv6 services, as *people do not route it*) > >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >-- >Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57386 (57785) > >SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 >80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
> > >--__--__-- > >Message: 4 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:23 +0100 >From: Pim van Pelt <PIM@IPNG.NL>>To: Bob Fink <BOB@THEFINKS.COM>>Cc: 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu>, Marc GOMEZ <MG@CTN1.COM>>Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > >Hi, > >| CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully >| compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December >| 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. >Even though I've had my say already, I would like to repeat myself. > >There were some serious holes in the application as pointed out previously >by some folk. After this, there were no clear signs that the situation >improved and I find it very strange that a third party is answering >questions regarding the pTLA request and not the requestor. As a matter of >fact, the whole thread was CC:ed to Mr. Gomez and he did not answer a single >question. > >It is my honest opinion (and I have been fair in the past) that this >company is not ready to be granted custody of a pTLA. > >With regards to this being the last one: it should not be an issue that >the last request was denied. People who state differently are not thinking >straight. > >groet, >Pim > >-- >---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- >Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl >http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment >----------------------------------------------- > >--__--__-- > >Message: 5 >From: "Christian Nickel" <DRAGON@TDOI.ORG>>To: "Nicolas DEFFAYET" <NICOLAS.DEFFAYET@NDSOFTWARE.NET>, > "Bob Fink" <BOB@THEFINKS.COM>>Cc: "6BONE List" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu>, "Marc GOMEZ" <MG@CTN1.COM>>Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:54:16 +0100 > >From: "Nicolas DEFFAYET" <NICOLAS.DEFFAYET@NDSOFTWARE.NET>>Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 8:47 PM >Subject: R
e: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > > > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: > > 6bone Folk, > > > > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 >December > > > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > <HTTP: www.ctn1.com>> > > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to >31 > > > December. > > > > The community must be open about this request. > > > > This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > > Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > > IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the > > IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this > > request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high > > quality IPv6 services to their customers. > > > > Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > about it. > > > > I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help > > CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. > > > > Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, > > (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer > > free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... > > > > Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. > > > >I do _not_ agree
to the pTLA request until CTN1 let us know a bit more about >what their plans are. > >e.g., IF they DO have plans to operate a large scaled IPv6 Network, WHY is >it >impossible to become a LIR and get REAL IPv6 address space. >"I have put 1.000.000 EUR. I respect your job respect my company!!!" >So, there shouldn't be a fincancial problem in this case. > >As Gert said, 6bone is (nearly) dead, and is not a place to provide >commercial >services to customers. So, which research projects does CTN1 support and/or >provide? > >I think we've read enough chitchat by Mr. NDSOFTWARE, and I'm awaiting >eagerly >a statement by CTN1. > > >Greets, >Christian Nickel > >------------------------------------------ >TDOI Network | www.tdoi.org | noc@tdoi.org > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 6 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:51:44 -0800 >To: 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >From: Bob Fink <BOB@THEFINKS.COM>>Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December > 2003 > >6bone Folk, > >I have denied the CTN1 pTLA request as of today. I do wish Marc Gomez and >CTN1 well in providing IPv6 transport to the customers of CTN1, and do hope >Marc will pursue a production prefix from RIPE. > >I did not deny this request lightly, and did ask various follow up >questions. I remained concerned about the inability to even reach the CTN1 >web site or find a AAAA record in its DNS until today (or at least >intermittently so). In my opinion it is unlikely that CTN1 really provided >all the required services for the full 3 month period required. If we >weren't at the end of 6bone prefix allocation, I would have encouraged Marc >to wait a little longer until he clearly established operational experience >in IPv6 for CTN1 sufficient to qualify for a pTLA. Alas, we are out of time >and no more 6bone pTLA prefixes will be allocated. > >Regardless of the cost to acquire production prefi
xes from the RIRs, >clearly it isn't all that hard as there are almost 500 prefixes allocated >now, more than half (274) of which come from RIPE. Compare this to the >current 123 6bone pTLA prefixes allocated and it is clear that the time for >an early experimental method to distribute IPv6 addresses is past. > >I want to thank everyone who has participated in this pTLA review, on both >sides, for your comments. > > >Thanks, > >Bob Fink > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 7 >From: "Jeroen Massar" <JEROEN@UNFIX.ORG>>To: "'Nicolas DEFFAYET'" <NICOLAS.DEFFAYET@NDSOFTWARE.NET>>Cc: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Cleansing 6bone (Was: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003) >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:43:05 +0100 >Organization: Unfix > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >[Real problems, private ASN's etc, at the about 50% of the mail] > >Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > > > ND> Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > > ND> There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > > ND> about it. > > > > > > If pTLA requests don't conform to RFC2772 they should not > > > be allocated a pTLA. > > > > Please read the archive before ! > > When you have pTLA allocated with unassigned ASN, only one contact > > person,... Are this pTLA conform to RFC2772 ? Why they have been > > allocated ? > >I totally agree with you Nico, 6bone should be reclaiming space >that is not actively maintained any more. > >We will start by pointing out one of the newer prefixes, yours: > >$ whois -h whois.6bone.net 3FFE:4013::/32 > >netname: FR-NDSOFTWARE-20021110 >descr: NDSoftware IP Network >country: FR >admin-c: NN175-RIPE >tech-c: NN175-RIPE >rev-srv: ns1.ndsoftware.net >rev-srv: ns2.ndsoftware.net >rev-srv: ns3.ndsoftware.net >notify: noc@ndsoftware.ne
t >mnt-by: MNT-NDSOFTWARE >changed: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net 20021110 >changed: nicolas.deffayet@ndsoftware.net 20031206 >source: 6BONE > >Let me see, 1 contact person, not even a 6bone handle, >but that is allowed and it's probably cooler to register >6bone objects in the wrong registry. > >Could your staff (or you yourself) fix this as per >RFC2772, which you just commented about? Aka you might >want to add 2 more contacts, who are not you. > >Don't complain about other TLA's when you cannot even >fix maintain own or that of your company. > >Ofcourse you are completely correct, this should be >fixed as soon as possible. > >Fortunatly for the owners of these prefixes there hasn't >been a real witch hunt for these problems and I suspect >there never will be. 6bone is testspace and problems are >allowed to happen. Ofcourse they should be fixed asap and >the only way of doing that is contacting the relevant. > >I would like to point people out to <SHAMELESS selfplug>: >http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ > >Current problems, which really should not be there: > >2001:d10::/32 AS64600 is reserved >2001:d30::/32 Multiple Origin ASN's (2500,4717) >2002:c2b1:d06e::/48 More specific 6to4 prefix (194.177.208.110/32) from AS5408 >2002:c8a2::/33 More specific 6to4 prefix (200.162.0.0/17) from AS15180 >2002:c8c6:4000::/34 More specific 6to4 prefix (200.198.64.0/18) from AS15180 >2002:c8ca:7000::/36 More specific 6to4 prefix (200.202.112.0/20) from AS15180 >3ffe:1300::/24 Mismatching origin ASN, should be 762 (now: 10318) >3ffe:2200::/24 Ghost Route (18/12) >3ffe:3500::/24 AS64600 and AS64702 are reserved >3ffe:8030::/28 Ghost Route (20/12) > >6bone does affect RIPE space as you can see from the above list. > >btw AS10318, if *anybody* has a contact there, please ask them to >respond to the list or privatly. Any peers still peering with them >please consider to depeer as they have been
unreachable for over >a year now. > ><SNIP> > > > A lot of pTLA allocated have never make end-user assignement... > >There is no requirement for making end-user assignments. >6bone is a *test* bed, not a production environment. >Though one of the methods for testing could be to test making >end-user assignments and giving them access to the 6bone so >that they can test how IPv6 works, thus making you test out >whether your routing infrastructure works. That is the main >goal for the 6bone: testing. Ofcourse it is needless to say >that prefixes don't even have to be announced for this reason. > >Checking: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/6bone/ >8<--------------------------------------------------------- >The database currently holds 144 IPv6 TLA's. >Of which 16 (11.11%) are returned to the pool, 16 (11.11%) >IPv6 TLA's didn't have a routing entry. >Thus 112 (77.78%) networks are currently announced. >- --------------------------------------------------------->8 > >Unfortunatly we don't have data from way back when most of >these where allocated, but this does show that some are >not reachable. > > > Why a pTLA request for make end-user assignement must be > > denied because the requester can use the upstream address space ? > >Indeed, quite strange that you need another pTLA then: > >$ whois -M 3ffe:4013::/32 |grep inet6num > >inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2207::/48 >inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2105::/48 >inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2300::/40 >inet6num: 3FFE:4013:1000::/36 >inet6num: 3FFE:4013:2104::/48 > >3 /48's a /40 for 'personal' use and a /36 for some other 'project'. >You could btw with ease delegate some more space to CTN1, they >have the same upstream and then they can test their commercial >million euro webhosting. If you try to make your point then >you really should have gotten your own act together first. > >Greets, > Jeroen > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >
;Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. >Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ > >iQA/AwUBP+Db7CmqKFIzPnwjEQI9EgCgva+RyN0Ha1KmEmq9APzMq8ei8aYAnjBQ >sU6ObEhLDJlL3UDvDQxlS5Fx >=/QjC >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 8 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:25:28 -1000 (HST) >From: Antonio Querubin <TONY@LAVA.NET>>To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <ITOJUN@ITOJUN.ORG>>Cc: mamthabc@yahoo.co.in, 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >Subject: Re: [6bone] doubt about protocol independent Ping. > >On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > > > Stevens' book (TCP/IP network programming) has very old description of > > protocol independent programming, so do not refer it. rather, please > > refer the following: > > http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/ > > http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/freenix/metzprotocol/ > >Steven's book has many detailed examples of coding in a protocol >independent manner that continue to be applicable even today. The API >hasn't changed that much in 5 years to make it the book so obsolete that >it should no longer be referred to. While the above 2 articles talk about >protocol independent issues, they're a bit sparse for reference use by >someone learning a new API. > >--__--__-- > >Message: 9 >From: "Dan Reeder" <DAN@REEDER.NAME>>To: "Nicolas DEFFAYET" <NICOLAS.DEFFAYET@NDSOFTWARE.NET>>Cc: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:35:19 +1000 > > > Please read the archive before ! > > When you have pTLA allocated with unassigned ASN, only one contact > > person,... Are this pTLA conform to RFC2772 ? Why they have been > > allocated ? > >Nicholas, you can't seem to get beyond the fact that just because something >bad happened in the past that doesn't mean it should
continue to happen. >Just beacuse banks have been robbed in the past doesnt mean you should feel >free to walk in and demand what you want today. > >The point is that those allocations were mistakes and shouldn't have been >granted approval in the first place. Just like CTN1. > >Besides, as has been pointed out the 6bone is on its last legs. If CTN1 is >such a well funded company (i'd love to have 1 million euros at my disposal) >then I'm sure RIPE would be all ears. And if thats still not feasible, what >is stopping NDSoftware from giving a /35 to them? You are partners, right? > >Dan Reeder > > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 10 >Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:37:42 -1000 (HST) >From: Antonio Querubin <TONY@LAVA.NET>>To: Bob Fink <BOB@THEFINKS.COM>>Cc: 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > >On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Bob Fink wrote: > > > I want to thank everyone who has participated in this pTLA review, on both > > sides, for your comments. > >Thank YOU for all your time and effort in coordinating this aspect of the >6bone project through the years :) > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 11 >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:26:28 +0000 >From: Tim Chown <TJC@ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>>To: 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by CTN1 - review closes 16 December 2003 > >On reflection I think this request should be denied, because it does not >meet the requirements, as highlighted by others on this list. I thus >remove my previous support for the request. > >Tim > >On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:47:20PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 19:32, Bob Fink wrote: > > 6bone Folk, > > > > > CTN1 has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully > > > compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this closes 16 December >
> > 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. > > > > > > <HTTP: www.ctn1.com>> > > > > > This may be the last 6bone pTLA allocation made as the phaseout plan > > > specifies no new pTLA allocations after the end of this year. Thus if > > > anyone is expecting to request a pTLA, the request must be sent to me no > > > later than 5 December to allow enough review and approval time prior to 31 > > > December. > > > > The community must be open about this request. > > > > This is the last pTLA request, I think that we can allocate this pTLA. > > Closing the pTLA allocation period with a request denied don't promote > > IPv6 usage and is not good for the community. CTN1 want promote the > > IPv6, i'm agree they are very just with the time, but with deny of this > > request they can't promote IPv6 usage and they can't offer free and high > > quality IPv6 services to their customers. > > > > Open your eyes, not all pTLA request respect fully RFC2772. > > There is a problem with this request, because some people want troll > > about it. > > > > I don't work for CTN1, CTN1 is just a partner for NDSoftware. We help > > CTN1 in its IPv6 deploiement. > > > > Please note that for get a sTLA from RIPE, the requester must be a LIR, > > (a cost of ~ 4500 EUR). It's a very high cost for promote IPv6 and offer > > free IPv6 services with a minimum of quality and independance.... > > > > Thanks for have read my mail, i wait your comments. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > -- > > Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware > > NDSoftware IP Network: http://www.ip.ndsoftware.net/ > > FNIX6 (French National Internet Exchange IPv6): http://www.fnix6.net/ > > EuroNOG: http://www.euronog.org/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list >
; > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > >--__--__-- > >Message: 12 >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:57:53 +0000 >From: Tim Chown <TJC@ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>>To: 6BONE List <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> >Subject: Re: [6bone] winding down and returns? > >Thanks Bob. > >The next step is then to wind down the 6bone allocations, and perhaps >encourage formal returns? It may be that 50% of current holders are >inactive due to commercial allocations, but have not bothered to "hand in" >pTLAs as there's isn't a process as such. > >Some networks already don't accept 6bone prefixes. So their usefulness >is already becoming more limited. > >Tim > >On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:51:44PM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > 6bone Folk, > > > > I have denied the CTN1 pTLA request as of today. I do wish Marc Gomez and > > CTN1 well in providing IPv6 transport to the customers of CTN1, and do hope > > Marc will pursue a production prefix from RIPE. > > > > I did not deny this request lightly, and did ask various follow up > > questions. I remained concerned about the inability to even reach the CTN1 > > web site or find a AAAA record in its DNS until today (or at least > > intermittently so). In my opinion it is unlikely that CTN1 really provided > > all the required services for the full 3 month period required. If we > > weren't at the end of 6bone prefix allocation, I would have encouraged Marc > > to wait a little longer until he clearly established operational experience > > in IPv6 for CTN1 sufficient to qualify for a pTLA. Alas, we are out of time > > and no more 6bone pTLA prefixes will be allocated. > > > > Regardless of the cost to acquire production prefixes from the RIRs, > > clearly it isn't all that hard as there are almost 500 prefixes allocated > > now, more than half (274) of which come from RIPE. Compare this to
the > > current 123 6bone pTLA prefixes allocated and it is clear that the time for > > an early experimental method to distribute IPv6 addresses is past. > > > > I want to thank everyone who has participated in this pTLA review, on both > > sides, for your comments. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bob Fink > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > >End of 6bone Digest </div><br clear=all><hr>Tired of spam? Get <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAEN/2734??PS=">advanced junk mail protection</a> with MSN 8.</html>