Memphis IETF ngtrans-6bone WG minutes

[Brian E Carpenter]

The reason for the new AFI was that using the ICD didn't leave any
code point for future use by the IANA; the new AFI gives the IANA
a 16 bit code point for future use. This was done at the insistence
of the IANA; personally I'd have stayed with the ICD, but that's
water under the bridge.

Actually Juha Heinanen may want a second code point, to provide
a pure IPv4-in-ATM address embedding. He certainly hasn't expressed
concern about the new AFI value. He has found a minor error
in the RFC though (it doesn't spell out the complete IDP correctly,
as I recall without checking.)

  Brian Carpenter

>- Harrington, Dan said:
> 
> 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
>