[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] 9/9/2004 IP6.INT Removal (Was: 9/9/2006 : ip6.int shutdown?)

On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 11:59, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 22-jul-04, at 10:56, Pim van Pelt wrote:
> 
> > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-
> > removal-00.html
> > | Short, quick and easy.
> 
> Can't argue with that.  :-)
> 
> > I for one do not see the need to kill ip6.int 'per se' in 2004. I would
> > think that the 6bone removal date in 2006 is more realistic.
> 
> I don't see any benefits to removing the ip6.int delegation in the  
> first place. It makes much more sense to do this from the leaves up  
> than from the root down.

The leaves already have started falling in many places. Doing this
quickly will make sure that everybody knows it can be removed from their
systems and will identify the implementations that have not been
upgraded yet.

> However, if this is going to happen, doing it this year is way too  
> soon, as current IOS and Windows XP (both in wide use) rely on ip6.int.  

IOS updates are there, XP will get an update per SP2, which you can
download already. For both, if you are using IPv6 you want to use new
software (Debian unstable/testing ;) anyways. Thus upgrading is not an
issue.

> Newer versions that support ip6.arpa should be available for at least a  
> year prior to removing ip6.int, in my opinion. So that would probably  
> land us somewhere near 6/6/6, although there is of course no relation  
> to the 6bone sunset.

It doesn't break any connectivity. Only reverse lookups using ip6.int
will break. As neither IOS nor XP is a server OS this is not an issue.
Traceroutes will not resolve and that is it. The major usage for reverse
is IRC anyways and do you know somebody running an IRCD on IOS or XP?
FTP/Mailservers/etc are servers and should run on Windows 2003 Server
and not on XP "Pro" or even "Home". Windows 2003 Server already does
ip6.arpa. IMHO this is thus a complete non-issue and the fault of the
vendors who where both aware of this for three years already.
Btw XP SP2 RC2 is available and works, guess what I am running ;)

Waiting on vendors because they don't update their implementation is
useless especially for this. They had their chance for 3 years already
and they claim to be IPv6 compliant.

> I also think expecting this to be published as an RFC by 9/9/4 is  
> highly optimistic.  :-)

Indeed, but that is something political not technical ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20040722/e8aaabea/attachment.sig>