[34] in SIPB IPv6
Re: IPv6 coordination
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Raeburn)
Thu Aug 1 14:52:10 2002
To: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@lcs.MIT.EDU>, sipbv6@MIT.EDU
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 14:52:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20020723210955.GA17630@locust.lcs.mit.edu> (Noah Meyerhans's
message of "Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:09:55 -0400")
Noah Meyerhans <noahm@lcs.mit.edu> writes:
> Since you're more familiar with the details of the current setup, could
> you (or somebody else with a similar understanding) take a look at the
> requirements described in the above URL and let me know where we stand
> in terms of compliance?
1) More than 3 months with:
a) registry info up to date - I think I saw some conflicting info
when I poked around a while back
b) bgp4+ peering - yep, looks like
c) forward and reverse dns - yep
d) ipv6-accessible system providing one or more web pages describing
our services - do we have *any* ipv6 web servers?
2) ability and intent to provide "production-quality" backbone
service; depending how much traffic that implies, I'd want to talk
to jis first (and he's not on this list), but maybe Bill's already
discussed the matter with him
a) support staff of two (preferably three) persons registered in the
ipv6-site object info - Bill's the only one I saw in the registry
when I checked; I might be willing to be a second, if I can get up
to speed a little more on bgp4+ peering etc
b) common mailbox for support contact; I'm not sure sipbv6 is best
for both that and local MIT IPv6 interest
3) be a major provider of Internet service in a region, country, or
focus of interest; does "MIT community and groupies" count as a
significant "focus of interest"?
4) commit to abide by current 6bone rules & policies etc etc
I'm not convinced we qualify on (1)(a), (1)(d) or (3), and we'd have
to get serious about (2) if we wanted to do this.
So what's the benefit of getting a pTLA over our current arrangement?
Ken
