[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[6bone] RFC2772 rewrite

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Rockell" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [6bone] RFC2772 rewrite

> I think we are going to write in someting specifying a 'minimum level of
> service'.   However, quantifying that is going to be hard.  I think the
> INTENT of the launguage will point to a robust support infrastructure, but
> as long as companies provide non-revenue-generating service, I don't think
> it is fair to assume a ISP-NOC like level of service. The goal is to get
> there, and we'll put verbiage in that allows for repurcussions if someone is
> providing what is commonly felt to be 'non-production-like' service.  Will
> this satisfy all parties?

That seems fair to me.  I feel that i should provide a good service to all people connected via IPv6 to us.  I know the others that
help me here also feel this way.  If we want to seriously move to an ipv6 Internet, then we need to try our best to provide a
production-like service (to the best extent of our non-revenue-generating activities!).
If providers are repeatedly having massive problems, causing problems in the v6 routing tables or just being unresponsive then i
think repurcussions are an acceptable way forward.

With Thanks,

Daniel Austin,
Managing Director,
kewlio.net Limited.
<[email protected]>

> Thanks
> Rob Rockell
> SprintLink
> (+1) 703-689-6322
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 13 Nov 2002, Robert Kiessling wrote:
> ->Paul Aitken <[email protected]> writes:
> ->
> ->> Presumably if you take your girlfriend away for the weekend then
> ->> either you persuade her to let you take your laptop computer with you,
> ->> or you get Mike Cheney to stand in for you, right?
> ->
> ->You have a very good point pointing to a serious conflict.
> ->
> ->You and others operate pTLAs and provide many valuable services to the
> ->community. However, it's operated as a spare-time activity without,
> ->for example, guaranteed response times.
> ->
> ->This leads to serious operational impact on the whole IPv6 world. I
> ->just want to recall the AS1654 incidence, where a hobby pTLA brought
> ->down significant parts of the global IPv6 network and we were lucky
> ->enough that the IPv4 upstream was available to turn off the tunnel
> ->endpoint.
> ->
> ->As a result the IPv6 network quality is considerably worse than IPv4,
> ->and understandably people are reluctant to trust important services to
> ->IPv6.
> ->
> ->I see only two solutions:
> ->
> ->1. Isolate 6bone and similarly operated one-host-wildly-tunneled sTLAs
> ->from a production-quality IPv6 core, and widely implement filtering.
> ->
> ->2. Assure that pTLAs provide a minimum of service.
> ->
> ->Robert
> ->
> ->_______________________________________________
> ->6bone mailing list
> ->[email protected]
> ->http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
> ->
> _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone