RIPng

[bound@zk3.dec.com]

>> If we are not going to do RIPng in 1 month then lets use Alain's scheme for 
>> now at least for the star topology.  

>Note that I was agreeing with Alain regarding the basic topology of this
>stage of the 6bone, that is, a mesh of "backbone" or "core" routers, with
>individual sites or sub-communities hung off that.  Any problem with
>insufficient aggregation should only be in the backbone routers, since the
>leaf sites or communities can just use default for all off-site or out-of-
>community destinations.  There seems to be some disagreement on the severity
>of the backbone problem, but if the folks managing those routers find it
>too much of a burden, and can't solve it soon enough by getting RIPng
>running, by all means let's aggregate routes as Alain suggested.  Though,
>as Pedro pointed out, we don't need to change the addressing format for that.
>To aggregate all the European sites, for example, just pick one of the
>European AS numbers currently being used in the 6bone and get all European
>sites to renumber their nodes under that one AS number -- they'll still
>have the IPv4 prefix in there to ensure uniqueness.

I think we are in violent agreement.  What I think would be good is to
not force anyone to use a "path" UNH-NRL-WIDE if they can go to
MIT-UNIVARIZONA-WIDE. It should be open to what path is available like
on the Internet today based on some metric of choice.  I also think this
gives us a better system test scenario and hopefully with ripng.  I
think it should be loose, complex, and break so we understand where it
breaks. Too much order in the beginning will cause us to get secure in a
bogus way.  

>> And I am listening more to people who are sending packets on the network
>> and doing this real time than the theories to get this up and running.

>Are you suggesting that I should shut up?

No.  I am running your architecture why would I want that.  No one knows
it better than you.  I am just saying that the discussion of how maybe
to automate the tunnels should be OK.  The reason I brought it up is cause
I saw the problem if I had to do this for 1000 nodes.  In addition it
affects the transition.  When you speak as above its clear, precise, and
99% right.  But thats not what I heard in all the mail.  I heard people
who are not Steve Deering, or Brian Carpenter, or Christian Huitema, et
al. (who I consider people I automatically listen too) tell a person doing
this work and who themselves I don't think are even putting packets on the 
wire that, the other person does not have a clue.  Anyone in that
category should not shut up but I am not going to listen to them. OK.
I can see how you got what you did out of what I said and I am sorry
about that but that was not my intention.

>> And I have respect for those who were at the bake-off and ran real code
>> under test with other implementations than those who did not.

>Let's all try to maintain respect for each other, OK?  This whole enterprise
>is fragile enough as it is without the stress of squabbling among ourselves.

I agree.  But I am not going to just sit here and watch abuse either,
and you know I can't do that even if I wanted to.

/jim