Mailing List Archive

bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 01:28:56PM +0100, Daniel Austin wrote:
>
>>Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>
>>>On 5-jun-2005, at 19:00, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I see no reason to return my 6bone space (although I'm not going to
>>>>>throw a hissy fit when my upstream takes it out of commission either).
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well you are going to if you like it or not:
>>>>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3701.txt
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thus if you are using any 6bone prefix after 6/6/6 you simply are
>>>>hijacking address space.
>>>
>>>
>>>I look forward to discussing the meaning of the word "hijacking" with
>>>the IANA/ICANN lawyers.
>>
>>As nobody has obtained 6bone space without agreeing to give it back, I
>>really don't see an issue here. Everyone that has 6bone space has
>>agreed to the agreement. It will be returned, it will be useless after
>>6/6/2006. No amount of screaming and kicking is going to change that
>>and no amount of lawyers ;-)
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>Daniel Austin,
>>Managing Director,
>>Kewlio.net Limited.
>><daniel@kewlio.net>
>
>
> your assertions are interesting. can you point to the text of
> said agreement and where the repositiory of -signed- agreements
> exists?

They're not signed of course :)

But that works from both sides - there's no signed agreement that says
you have to give it back, but there's no signed agreement that says they
have to let you have it or route it etc.

It's all pointless anyway... what's the point of hijacking address space
that nobody(or rather few people) will accept?


Thanks,

--

Daniel Austin,
Managing Director,
Kewlio.net Limited.
<daniel@kewlio.net>

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:53:03PM +0100, Daniel Austin wrote:
> bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 01:28:56PM +0100, Daniel Austin wrote:
> >
> >>Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 5-jun-2005, at 19:00, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>I see no reason to return my 6bone space (although I'm not going to
> >>>>>throw a hissy fit when my upstream takes it out of commission either).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Well you are going to if you like it or not:
> >>>>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3701.txt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Thus if you are using any 6bone prefix after 6/6/6 you simply are
> >>>>hijacking address space.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I look forward to discussing the meaning of the word "hijacking" with
> >>>the IANA/ICANN lawyers.
> >>
> >>As nobody has obtained 6bone space without agreeing to give it back, I
> >>really don't see an issue here. Everyone that has 6bone space has
> >>agreed to the agreement. It will be returned, it will be useless after
> >>6/6/2006. No amount of screaming and kicking is going to change that
> >>and no amount of lawyers ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>Daniel Austin,
> >>Managing Director,
> >>Kewlio.net Limited.
> >><daniel@kewlio.net>
> >
> >
> > your assertions are interesting. can you point to the text of
> > said agreement and where the repositiory of -signed- agreements
> > exists?
>
> They're not signed of course :)
>
> But that works from both sides - there's no signed agreement that says
> you have to give it back, but there's no signed agreement that says they
> have to let you have it or route it etc.
>
> It's all pointless anyway... what's the point of hijacking address space
> that nobody(or rather few people) will accept?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
>
> Daniel Austin,
> Managing Director,
> Kewlio.net Limited.
> <daniel@kewlio.net>

so... the mythic agreement may or may not exist. there is
a document that says the prefix should be depricated on
a specific date. So what. there is a document from the
same group that sez RIP is depricated too... as to acecpting
the prefix into your portion of the routing system, your
perogative is to accept or reject any prefix - as is mine.
if you chose to not accept prefixes from any source, for what
ever reason, that is your choice. claiming it is "hijacked"
is disengenous at best and actionable at worst. I received
my prefix in 3ffe:: space from the IANA. Why the IESG/IAB
thinks it has the right to revolk that delegation is beyond me.

--bill

bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> I received
> my prefix in 3ffe:: space from the IANA. Why the IESG/IAB
> thinks it has the right to revolk that delegation is beyond me.

They don't but the IANA does and this is what they have to say
about it:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments

3FFE:0000::/16 6BONE 01 Dec 98 [5]

[5] 3FFE::/16 is an experimental allocation to the 6BONE [RFC2471].
This prefix will be returned to the unassigned address pool on
the 6th June 2006 [RFC3701].

If that's not what they plan to do then the document should be
updated to reflect that (it should also be updated to reflect
the direct 3ffe::/24 delegation).

Maybe 6bone will return 3ffe::/16 but IANA will leave 3ffe::/24
delegated. Whatever they do, addresses that are returned to the
unallocated pool are bogons right?

- Kevin

> is disengenous at best and actionable at worst. I received
> my prefix in 3ffe:: space from the IANA. Why the IESG/IAB
> thinks it has the right to revolk that delegation is beyond me.

rfc 3701 is informational, not a standard. No-one's going to batter
your door down and demand that you hand back the prefix on a plate. If
you want to keep your 3ffe:: prefix after 06/06/06, by all means keep
it. Just don't expect too much in the way of reachability.

Nick