[6bone] comments on draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-00

[Bob Fink]

Ronald,

At 11:17 AM 1/23/2003 +0100, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 18:58:14 -0800, Bob Fink wrote:
>
> > >The IANA MUST reclaim the
> > >   3FFE::/16 prefix upon the date specified in 2.0, and MUST make
> > >   provisions to set it aside from any other uses for a period of at
> > >   least two years after this date to minimize confusion with its
> > >   current use for the 6bone (e.g., thus allowing production IPv6
> > >   networks to filter out the use of the 3FFE::/16 prefix for a
> > >   reasonable time after the 6bone phaseout).
> > >
> > >==> I'm not sure about the second MUST.  Perhaps a SHOULD would do?  For
> > >example, consider if someone specified a locator,identifier separation
> > >mechanisms which would use two IPv6 addresses.  Identifiers would be from
> > >3000::/4 and the rest would be as before.  The above wording as I read it
> > >would prevent the allocation of 3000::/4.
> >
> > No, it only means 3ffe::/16 as it says, not anything shorter like 
> 3000::/4.
> > I can add the prefix again in the wording if you think it makes a
> > difference.
>
>I think what Pekka is saying is that reserving 3ffe::/16 prevents usage
>of any prefix that includes 3ffe::/16, e.g. 3000::/4.
>I think it is unlikely that we need a /4 for experiments in the next two
>years (let's first come up with a plan for ID/LOC separation :-) There are
>plenty of /16s in 2000::/4 or 3000::/4 that can be used for experiments.
>Or we can use any of the other unassigned blocks.
>
>But on the other hand a MUST is strong. Maybe SHOULD is better.

OK, comment duly noted. Will see what others say.


Thanks,

Bob