Memphis IETF ngtrans-6bone WG minutes

[Harrington, Dan]

Hi Bill,

You had asked:
> [...] However, I do have a question/concern regarding the
> proposed encapsulation.  It uses a new AFI (35) and I don't think
> that is currently one of the approved ATM NSAP formats by the
> ATM Forum, so there is some concern that this could potentially
> lead to some operational problems.  The original Internet Draft
> version of this subject used the normal AFI of 47 with an ICD
> of 0090, which definitely would not be a problem for ATM use.
> What was the rationale for changing this to use a new AFI?

My recollection (and I was not involved in the actual
discussions taking place) was that the use of IANA's
ICD value for this purpose left no possibility of any
other potential use, and was thus considered too restrictive.
The new AFI value was a way to avoid this limitation (although
it clearly was not the only possible solution).

Dan