[6bone] 6bone phaseout planning announcement

[Bob Fink]

Michel,

Thanks for the comments.

Sassacaia may be good, but not that good :-)


Bob


At 09:43 PM 1/10/2003 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
>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.