The faster we get cleaned up the .ip6.int vs .ip6.arpa in DNS the better it is. If we wait until 2006 or do it late this year doesn't matter, it will cause problems anyway. Let's go for 2004 and get things moving just a little bit faster ... people have known about .ip6.arpa for some times so the support should have been there. On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I will also support the idea of 6/6/6.
I believe a shorter time is a little bit dangerous. Some OS could be not updated so often. Not a maker problem, but by the users. The main point should be to avoid problems to users, mainly.
I also hear to Jeroen, but I'm not really sure that this actually means (and in 1-2 years from now) so many resources. Instead, we can also move forward faster IF the deployment takes up sooner.
Regards, Jordi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Chown" <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> To: "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org> Cc: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 2:34 PM Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:54:03PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
I propose that RIPE, and actually any other RIR, stops any delegations for ip6.int per 9/9/2006. Which is more than 3 years after the RFC has been released.
Maybe 6/6/6 as per 3ffe deprecation?
tim
********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
-- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj@stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no -------------------------------------------------------