more tunnels and what to do next (fwd)

[Steve Deering]

Quaizar,

> I actually meant almost the same, though stupid enough not to be able to 
> express it well in my mails.

No, it's mostly my fault for spouting off without carefully reading the
mail I'm responding to.  Anyway, I glad to see we are all in approximate
agreement, even if the consensus is a bit rough.

> Hence we have a few core routers each routing for a big cloud and the cloud 
> should have one common prefix (desirable) or a few, not a lots, i.e.
> one for each subnet.

You should at least be aggregating multiple subnets from a single site
already.  Is each individual subnet showing up in all the default-free
routers??

> By the way I thought the large addresses were created for heirachial routing
> and 6bone was something experimental where we can try this out.

Absolutely.  I didn't mean to discourage experiments in hierarchical routing.
However, simply aggregating a handful of static routes into a single static
route isn't going to teach us anything new about hierarchical routing, and
it sounded like the main motivation for the proposed aggregation was not
to demonstrate or experiment with hierarchical routing, but simply to
reduce a configuration burden that some other folks think isn't such a
big deal at the moment.  Certainly, as soon as people have implementations
of actual v6 routing protocols that they wish to try out in a hierarchical
fashion on the 6bone, they should be encouraged and helped to do so.
I like Kazu's description of the set of steps to be taken to get to that
stage.

Steve