SixXS shutting down 2017-06-06

[Brian E Carpenter]

Below...

On 24/03/2017 06:39, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2017-03-23 18:28, David Farmer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter
>> <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>> wrote
>>  
>>
>>     One detail not mentioned in the /sunset page. Will you leave the
>>     ULA tool and registry in place (https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/
>>     <https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/>) ?
>>     I believe some people like that.
>>
>>        Brian
>>
>>
>> I'd be interested in some data on the use of the ULA tool and registry,
>> I'd especially be interested in use over time.  Is use of the ULA
>> registry increasing or decreasing over the last few years?
> 
> That is an easy question to answer:
> 
> $ SELECT YEAR(ula_date) AS Year, COUNT(*) AS Count FROM grh_ulas GROUP
> BY YEAR(ula_date);
> +------+-------+
> | Year | Count |
> +------+-------+
> | 2007 |    63 |
> | 2008 |   140 |
> | 2009 |   321 |
> | 2010 |   611 |
> | 2011 |   835 |
> | 2012 |   742 |
> | 2013 |   724 |
> | 2014 |  1096 |
> | 2015 |  1303 |
> | 2016 |   640 |
> | 2017 |   143 |
> +------+-------+
> 11 rows in set (0.00 sec)
> 
> I would say that it is going down if we look at that count ;)
> 
>> Basically,
>> is there an argument for further or new work within the IPv6 community
>> on this front?
> 
>>From my POV not really. It is extremely simple to get a prefix from one
> of the RIRs. Yes, it costs some money, which is something that should be
> addressed IMHO. (routing gear etc costs money too though).
> 
> Also, more importantly, ULA is random per definition, and the chance of
> collisions is extremely low. (unless one does not use randomness).

I agree. I have never thought that ULA registration was useful. But
apparently some people were worried enough about collisions to use
the registry. In any case the little tool to generate a ULA prefix
is of value, so I hope you can leave that available.

    Brian

> 
>> Or, should this service just be sustained as-is, maybe
>> finding a new home or new support over the long-term?  Or, should this
>> service also be sunset, maybe not on the same timeframe as the other
>> SixXS services?
>>
>> Personally, if anything, I like to see some new work here, but I'd like
>> to drive what that is or should be with some data. 
> 
> Like with many things, I first would ask: what are the
> requirements/usecases/etc.
> 
>> Finally, many thanks to SixXS for their years of service to the IPv6
>> community!  And, kudos for planning an orderly sunset, rather than
>> decaying into oblivion.   
> 
> We have been warning people since December 2015. Hopefully since then
> they actually called their ISP or changed to ones that support IPv6.
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 
> 
>