IPv6 on ATM

[Ran Atkinson]

Jim,

  I'll quote directly from the official online meeting minutes
(see ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/ion/ion-minutes-96jun.txt) :

----------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point, the chairs opened the floor for discussion of the three
proposals presented. There were a number of clarification questions on
the three presentations. Referring to
draft-ietf-ion-ipv6atm-framework-00, Joel Halpern asked whether or not
we really wanted two multicast mechanisms. Markus responded that a
second mechanism wasn't necessary and that MARS could be used instead.

After some discussion, the chairs asked each of the presenters what they
believed the differences in the proposals were and what the best way
forward would be. The general consensus was that the major difference
was where to run NHRP (on the host or on the router). It was also urged
that the solution to neighbor discovery should attempt to minimize the
use of multicast/broadcast as the number of possible recipients could be
quite large. There was agreement that a merged draft will be produced
from the three proposals with a goal to have one server (MARS) instead
of two. This draft is expected in advance of the next IETF meeting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

      Note that this does not indicate that ANY decision has been made
on how to proceed and it explicitly notes that further discussion will
occur at the San Jose IETF.  Note also that co-locating the MARS server
with the NHRP server ("...one server instead of two") has been the
direction this working group has been moving in general (e.g. for IPv4
also) for sometime now.

      So my original comments to the 6bone list really are in fact
correct and consistent with the official online WG minutes. :-)

Best Regards,

Ran
rja@cisco.com

--