[ppml] Soliciting comments: IPv4 to IPv6 fast migration

[William Herrin]

On 7/25/07, bill fumerola <billf at mu.org> wrote:
> 6to4 is one of many systems to help transition. changes to how the space
> is handled must go through the IETF. this policy proposal seems moot
> given that it seeks to change RFC defined policies.

Hi Bill,

I've been discussing this off-list for the past few weeks with Brian
Carpenter, one of RFC 3056's authors. The view he expressed to me (and
I'm relying on his judgement here) is that submitting a short update
RFC would be a side issue if consensus could be reached here at ARIN
and among the network operators on NANOG's list. Does that allay your
concerns about the IETF/RFC side of the proposal?


> IETF/RFC concerns aside, dragging legacy addressing assignments forward
> into a new DFZ we're trying to keep clean also seems counter-productive.
> turning the 6to4 2002::/16 into a source of potential table pollution
> seems like the wrong direction to take. this forum is the wrong place
> to make that decision for the entire community.

It is my intention to ask folks on NANOG's list to comment on the
operational aspects of the proposal, especially table pollution. I
wanted to get my feet a little wet over here first before jumping the
rest of the way in. :)

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin                  herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004