IPv6 on ATM

[Dimitry Haskin]

Jim,

> 
> This is not entirely the case.  There was a debate and set of
> presentations on this at the June 1996 Montreal meeting.  Three
> different proposals were on the table.  One from Greenville Armitage,
> One from Schulter/Jork, and one from Atkinson, et al.  The Atkinson et
> al proposed to use NHRP.  Armitage wanted to use Multicast and a server
> strategy, and Schulter/Jork determined a scheme to treat ATM as any
> other link to IPv6.  The consensus that was reached was that
> Armitage/Schulter/Jork will combine technologies and determine a course
> of action for ATM LANs and NHRP would only be used for cut-thu and over
> large clouds.  This had consensus by the WG Chair and the ) community
> The details of these specs I assume will be presented at San Jose in the
> ION WG.  The reason that the community did this is we do not want to
> have to rewrite our software for different links and many other reasons.
> Do a search on the ID Abstracts directory for "Schulter" "Amritage"
> "Atkinson" or "ION".  You can use that as background.
> 

This was not my reading of the "community consensus".  As I remember it,
the consensus was that Greenville and Peter should attempt to combine
their proposal and then community will decide between remaining two.
For one, both Greenville's and Peter's proposals are ATM centric and it
would be a win if we define solution which works over all NBMA technologis
as the Atkinson et al proposal does.

Dimitry