[6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement

[Michel Py]

Bob, Bob, 6boners,

> Bob Fink wrote:
> The following draft has been submitted to the IETF ID directory,
> but hasn't appeared yet, so I have placed it on the 6bone web site.

It has appeared now, see:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00.txt

Short comments [before the long ones]:
- I think that such a document is necessary, and I support it.

> Jordi Palet Martinez wrote:
> 3) It seems to me that we must allocate pTLAs until January 1st
> 2006 (6 months can still do a lot for "last minute" newcomers).

- I agree with Jordi here that 6 months before the sunset seems a reasonable limit to me to allocate new pTLAs.

- The sunset in July (vs. January) seems a good idea to me. Operationally speaking, July is better time of year to monkey with filter-lists.

- I would personally be favorable to a sunset one year after what you proposed, July 1 2007. This is a matter of appreciation and shall be discussed. The 2006 sunset is reasonable as well, IMHO.

- This might push things behind what some have in mind, so I have a question for Bob Fink:
Bob, by then your house will be completed. How many bottles of Sassacaia does it take for you to stay at the helm until 2007?


Long comments:
[disclaimer] Most of what follows are arguments about why the 6bone should be shut down. It does *not* mean that I think the 6bone is bad. I just don't have time to write about why it is good, as it does not need justification. 6bone ROCKS.

That being said, there are two main reasons why the 6bone needs to sunset.
1. The prefix MUST be reclaimed.
2. The 6bone will at some point handicap the development of a
   native IPv6 backbone.

1. The prefix must be reclaimed.
We must make clear that the 6bone is, has always been, and will always be EXPERIMENTAL, which means it is not a cheap substitute for temporary portable address space that is to be transformed into permanent portable address space.

I am not a pTLA. I am not stupid though; if I feel that the pTLA status is a shortcut to a permanent /32 portable address space, I will setup overnight something (like adding a cable modem to my residential aDSL, that does not remind anybody anything, does it) that exceeds RFC 2772 and become one.
We must foil schemes that will lead to a landrush a year before sunset and leave us with the déjà vu of the IPv4 swamp.


2. The 6bone will at some point handicap the development of a
   native IPv6 backbone.

The current situation, everyone providing free transit to everyone and no IPv6 DFZ is no business model.

It has worked so far because there is no money to make with IPv6 (the crumbs the handful of commercial v6 ISPs are making today are 3 orders of magnitude below what it takes to build a backbone).
As of today, the volunteer efforts of what is collectively the 6bone have been a launchpad for IPv6.
At some point, a real commercial backbone is needed though. I wish IPv6 service could be free forever, bit this simply is not the way it works.

The challenge we are facing is to time the 6bone sunset when it will become more an obstacle than it is a benefit today.

What are the reasons that I think 2007 would be more appropriate than 2006:
- Deployment of commercial IPv6 remains confidential. The "killer app" that would launch v6 into orbit has not been found yet, and given the current state of the economy 3 years is not enough for a launch.
- Until v6 becomes mainstream, a boatload of 2001:: tunnel brokers is no improvement over a truckload of 3FFE:: tunnel brokers.
- There is no IPv6 multihoming solution as of today.

In short: I generally approve the text. My reading of fine-tuning is that it realistically appears a little short-timed, but I would support a 2006 sunset.

Michel.