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

	whjile i applaud each and everyone who has expunged
	all ip6.int from their lives, the fact of the matter is that
	IETF fiat or no, there exist -many- systems that can only use
	reverse maps in the ip6.int tree.   

	it will be maintained as long as there are queries for 
	it.  for those of you for whom ip6.int is a distant memory,
	pleae understand and respect the fact that you can not, 
	despite public posturing, force others to change their 
	systems. to practically remove ip6.int incures real cost
	in both time and cash.  in the US there is a term for what
	the IETF is trying to do w/ ip6.int.  Its called an unfunded
	mandate.  Unless or until the good folk in the IETF who are
	calling for the removal of ip6.int are ready to put up the 
	cash to effect real change, I wish they would stop.


> > > On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 09:58, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 2004-07-22, at 09.43, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > But indeed, if there is concensus or not 9/9/2004 and ip6.int is gone
> > > > > for me.
> > > > 
> > > > I vote for 9/9/2004 and getting rid of it properly. Maintaining two 
> > > > reverse threes will create more problems than it will solve.
> > 
> > What, specifically, is the hurry? 
> 
> That this has been overdue for three years already and that even though
> the deprecation was marked in August 2001 some vendors still not have
> done the change. And as it is a s/ip6.int/ip6.arpa/g which is very easy,
> if vendors did not do that yet they are way overdue and you got to
> wonder how much their interest is in keeping software upto date.
> 
> Basically we (at least me) have been waiting for the 6bone to get the
> delegation so that we could remove the 2 trees and only keep one:
> ip6.arpa. This was decided by the IAB thus we should live up to it.
> 
> If we do not remove ip6.int then still implementations using it will
> not show up. They have had 3 years already to update...
>  
> > > Take your pick:
> > > 
> > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00.html
> > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00.txt
> > > http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00.xml
> > > 
> > > Short, quick and easy.
> > > If no comments are risen for 16:00 today I'll submit this as an ID.
> > 
> > Comments:
> > 	e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa was documented in RFC3681 published in February
> > 	2004 and actioned in July 2004.
> 
> Added, but note that this was all long overdue and there where a number
> of other solutions that would have worked already 2 years ago if there
> had not been any of the political arguments holding back this technical
> issue. Note also that 6bone will end per 6/6/6 and that it is a TESTbed.
> The TESTbed is delaying and thus hurting the production networks in this
> case.
> 
> > 	I'm assuming the actioning of e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is the trigger
> > 	for this I-D; if so, why do you want to wait so little time (2
> > 	months) between e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa becoming available and
> > 	requiring people to have updated resolver libraries?
> 
> People should have updated their resolvers in the last *3 years*.
> If you have not done that already then you are not maintaining your
> machines properly and there is a big chance that you have bigger
> problems than a IPv6 reverse DNS that doesn't work anymore because
> ip6.int is gone.
> 
> > 	Personally I'd be more in favour of a 6 month timeout - i.e
> > 	around last December or so.
> 
> Of course the date is up to discussion, but IMHO: ASAP and at least
> before the end of the year, the sooner the better.
> 
> Note that Cisco's IOS updates will be done before that date and Windows
> XP2 will come out in August (they say) thus everybody using IPv6 has
> time enough to upgrade. All "free unix flavors" already support it 
> 
> Also users agree: http://www.sixxs.net/forum/?msg=general-83948
> Note the begin date of that thread, we where really waiting for 6bone
> just as being nice to the people still using it.
> 
> On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 10:57, Rob Blokzijl wrote: 
> 
> > > If no comments are risen for 16:00 today I'll submit this as an ID.
> > 
> >     two minor points. In the abstract and the introduction you write:
> >       
> >       RFC 3152 delegates IP6.ARPA for reverse IPv6 delegations. For RIRs 
> >       (RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,LACNIC and soon AFNIC)
> > 
> >     Replace RIPE --> RIPE NCC
> 
> That I did that wrong is a major oops, I should by know the difference by now.
> 
> >     Replace AFNIC --> AFRINIC
> > 
> >       (AFNIC is the .fr registry :-) )
> 
> Also adjusted and added some xref's in the XML.
> 
> Old version is now draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00.a new version
> carries the draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00 name.
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 



> *              sig-ipv6:  APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-ipv6 mailing list
> sig-ipv6 at lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-ipv6