Memphis IETF ngtrans-6bone WG minutes

[Bob Fink]

Bill,

At 6:52 PM -0700 4/15/97, Bill Fink wrote:
...
>Any idea when this aggregate-based unicast addressing plan I-D will be
>available?  Is this supposed to be a replacement for the geographic based
>addressing option (format 100) or yet another option?

Bob Hinden promised it in a week or two from the meeting.  He has (as we
all do) a great interest in getting it out quickly, so I would expect it
soon.

As for what it is, it is provider-like addressing in that the owner of a
block assigns sub parts of it, delegating downwards, but there are several
very important differences:

1. an exchange (like a NAP with extra functionality) can be registered as
well as a provider at the top-level.  This makes it quasi geo/metro-like.
People getting their delegation from an exchange (as opposed to a provider)
will then arrange who will be their transit provider beyond the exchange
point of connection, and won't have to renumber as long as the exchange
operator stays in business.  Maybe transit arrangements are also another
business opportunity for the exchange operator.

2. the TLA (Top Level Aggregator) is limited to 13 bits to limit the
high-level routing complexity.  no words yet on who gets to be one of
these...stay tuned.

3. no registry bits are wasted, small blocks of TLAs will be handed out to
various registries as appropriate.

4. the IEEE EUI-64 was accepted, thus fixing the node id to 64 bits and
reducing the "routing goop" site prefix size to just 48-bits.  With the
site partition (subnet) field being 16 bits it means that the routing is
now able to be done on 64 bits.

5. the EUI-64 "global/local" bit will have significance in that if it is
set to "global" it may be treated as globally unique, while setting it
"local" will mean that it can then be formatted in a non-globally unique
fashion.

 | 3 | 13 bits |      32 bits   |    16   |            64 bits              |
 +---+---------+----------------+---------+---------------------------------+
 |010|   TLA   |        NLA*    |  subnet |        EUI-64 node id           |
 +---+---------+----------------+---------+---------------------------------+

TLA = Top Level Aggregator
NLA* = Next Level Aggregator
EUI-64 = http://standards.ieee.org/db/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html

>I'm working on a Federal networks ATM addressing plan, and I'm proposing
>to use IPv6 addresses embedded in ATM NSAP addresses.  I was originally
>planning to use a geographic based scheme, but perhaps I should check
>out this new addressing I-D to see what options it provides.  The bottom
>line is I need real IPv6 addresses from some registration authority.
>Is a registry for the US / North America defined at this point for any
>of the addressing options?

No registry exists at this time.  We anticipate starting with a test TLA
for the 6bone so we can start testing this whole thing, including
delegation and renumbering, as soon as possible.

Comments now appropriate from "all" on usability of EUI-64 for your
purpose.  There is a registry for it.


Apologies if I've misrepresented any of Bob's ideas here, but it is
probably useful to have some interpretation of this plan while we are
waiting on Bob :-)


Bob