Is there a large market for people wanting to pay $25,000+ per year for an IPv6 block ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrei Robachevsky" <andrei@ripe.net> To: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> Cc: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>; "David Kessens" <david@IPRG.nokia.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Action points from the RIPE 43 meeting
Hi Gert,
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
thanks for your overview. There's one thing that I'm missing, which is really important: reverse delegation for the 3FFE space under ip6.arpa (while I'm not sure whether this is an "official ipv6-wg action item", it has been mentioned in the IPv6-WG and the LIR-WG, and has been stressed as being important to solve quickly).
As far as I could find out, this has been delayed due to unnecessary political games between the RIRs, and I'm very sorry to hear that.
Always remember: we want IPv6 to succeed.
Playing games that lead to broken reverse resolving and to non-deployment of "official" reverse domains will *hurt* - it's already very messy, as many of the operating system vendors don't go to ip6.arpa, because it's considered broken.
Thanks for bringing this issue up on the list. When approached initially by the IETF the RIRs jointly worked with the 6bone to see how 6bone address space could be incorporated into the registry system, providing registration services to participants of the 6bone.
Consequently, a proposal incorporating the 6bone requirements was submitted to the 6bone and RIR communities in August with a request for comment. We have seen active discussions on the 6bone list however the relevant RIPE community lists have provided little feedback. However, here is still ample opportunity to send comments as the deadline was set at 31 December 2002. We must have a clear community position on the way forward. We will also report IETF recommendations as they develop.
gert
Regards,
Andrei
-- Andrei Robachevsky Chief Technical Officer RIPE NCC