[6bone] ip6.arpa ...

[Bill Manning]

% > I agree with your proposal.  The thing that RIPE thought up always felt
% > needlessly complex to me.
% 
% Uhh, the proposal at least to me looks unnecessarily complex.  There is no
% need to tie the process to having IPv6 enabled nameservers, or (to a
% lesser degree) TSIG capabilities.  Those items can be worked out, though,
% after the initial setup.
% 
% Folks want the delegations soon, not in a year.

	It won't take a year. And while it may have been required
	crutch seven years ago, there is -zero- reason why one should
	expect IPv6 data -not- be visable over IPv6 transport.  Do you
	want to tie IPv6 applications to reachability of an IPv4 service?


	a gripe about the RIR proposal is that only one (APNIC) has been
	fully committed to IPv6 and has had working v6 capable systems
	online for years.  RIPE has been sporadic in its support for
	IPv6 capable systems.  LATNIC has the expertise and some
	transmission capability while ARIN does not seem to have
	a working IPv6 support stratagy.

--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).