[6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003

[Dan Reeder]

> When it is reasonable to end the 6bone service is being determined as we
> speak through the 6bone phaseout planning discussions. It does need to end
> sometime, but we want to make sure it doesn't go away until it isn't
needed
> during the early deployment stage (that we are at now).

That raises the question: are we able to force the RIRs to offer globally
routable FREE production space for the purposes of testing? If not, would
there be any incentive for carriers / ISPs to offer their clients free
testing space?

If not then i think 3ffe will remain around for a much longer time than we
had all hoped.

Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Fink" <bob@thefinks.com>
To: "Philip Smith" <pfs@cisco.com>
Cc: "6BONE List" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu>; "NECTEC-IPv6" <ipv6@nectec.or.th>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003


> Philip,
>
> At 01:58 PM 2/27/2003 +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
> >Hi Bob,
> >
> >At 18:40 26/02/2003 -0800, Bob Fink wrote:
> >>Before I put a pTLA request out for review I ask the requester why they
> >>aren't getting a production prefix. Generally it boils down to wanting
to
> >>try IPv6 services without committing to a production prefix, sometime
for
> >>cost reasons, sometimes for organizational reasons.
> >
> >I can see there being a cost implication for a non-RIR member, but for an
> >existing RIR member? I'm just wondering if the RIRs maybe need to do more
> >publicity to their membership about the availability of production v6
> >space (I somehow doubt this), or, as I just mentioned to Bill, there is
> >something special about 3ffe::/16 which can't be satisfied by production
space.
>
> There are differences between the RIRs and what and how they charge.
>
> There isn't anything different about the 3FFE prefix these days (now that
> production prefixes are available) other than they can be gotten for early
> trials and for free. This is not to undercut the RIRs (this has all
existed
> for 7 years now, well before the RIRs handed out v6 prefixes) rather to
> make sure there is an early environment for trying out (often called
> testing and experimentation) IPv6. We all too often focus on this being
> free to the pTLA holder, but the greater reality is the no cost method it
> provides to the downstream users of these pTLAs.
>
> That is, there are many thousands of user end-sites, and some intermediate
> networks, that are able to try out IPv6 without having to search out a
> production IPv6 vendor (and there are still very few), make a contract
with
> them, and pay real money that is often not available at this stage. A good
> example of this are the various automatic tunnelling sites (like Viagenie
> et al) that serve many many users with no special arrangements or costs
> other than setting up the service for the user. These uses are meritorious
> at this very early stage of IPv6.
>
> When it is reasonable to end the 6bone service is being determined as we
> speak through the 6bone phaseout planning discussions. It does need to end
> sometime, but we want to make sure it doesn't go away until it isn't
needed
> during the early deployment stage (that we are at now).
>
>
> >BTW, I am definitely not suggesting denying NECTEC their request, just
> >curious to understand what technical differences exist between 3ffe::/16
> >and 2001::/16 space which causes them as an APNIC member to not simply
get
> >their space from APNIC. APNIC allows people to return production space
(as
> >they do for IPv4 space), and production space can be used for trying
> >things out (as we know in IPv4-land).
>
> Can't comment on that.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone