6Bone meeting follow up

[Bob Fink]

Hsin,

At 2:43 PM -0700 4/28/97, Hsin Fang wrote:
>Hi Bob:
>
>Several people approached me after 6Bone meeting to show their interest
>in "virtual provider based address" scheme. I would like to hear your opinion
>for whether should I write a quick draft.  Thanks.
>
>Regards,
>Hsin

As you probably saw in my 6bone action items list from Memphis, I had hoped
to elicit comments over the mail list on your proposal (aee A2 below).

I am basically enthusiastic about your proposal.  My only hesitition was
that we should be moving to a new "aggregation-based" test address format
based on the Memphis IPng WG meeting (as soon as Bob Hinden writes up the
draft).  This does exactly what you propose, just in the new format under
the 6bone test allocation.

Thus my question is, is it worth trying to go through renumbering under the
current format (reworked per your proposal) and then go through it again
with the new test address?


However, there may be issues (e.g., conversion to EUI-64 for host id) that
may slow down the move to the new format, thus making it more reasonable to
do your change for the interim.


I'll copy this to the list in the hopes of getting some broader-based
conversation on it.


Thanks for bringing it up...and thanks for the ideas and presentation in
Memphis.

Bob


====
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:00:32 -0700
To: 6bone@isi.edu (6BONE Mailer)
From: Bob Fink <RLFink@lbl.gov>
Subject: 6bone action items per Memphis IETF meeting
Sender: owner-6bone@ISI.EDU
Precedence: bulk

6bone folk,

The Memphis IETF was a very productive one for IPv6 and the 6bone.  We will
soon have a new Aggregation-Based Unicast Addressing Structure from the
IPng WG, using the 64-bit EUI-64, which will certainly have direct
implications for all developers and the 6bone.  We also had a very
successful conclusion to the Mike O'Dell 8+8/GSE proposals leaving us with
definite directions on many issues.

On the latter score (analysis of the GSE proposal) I strongly recommend
that everyone read the Internet Draft by
Crawford/Mankin/Narten/Stewart/Zhang that is available as
draft-ipngwg-esd-analysis-00.txt.

As for details of the above mentioned IPng WG actions, you will have to
wait for their minutes.


As for the 6bone WG meeting, we had many presentations on numerous items of
great importance for us.  I have outlined below what I think are the
primary action items resulting from the meeting.

Please comment on them to the mailer.  If I have left something out, or
misrepresented an issue, please let me know so I may correct the list as
soon as possible.


Thanks,

Bob

=================================================================

A1. Discussion of Allison Mankin's proposal to use the CAIRN Backbone as a
native IPv6 transport backbone (among other things) for the 6bone.

A2. Discussion of Hsin Fang's proposal to modify RFC1987 to use a virtual
IPv6 provider ID instead of ASN for addressing in the 6bone.

A3. Discussion of Bob Fink's proposal to follow the new Aggregation-Based
Unicast Addressing Structure (when it is published as an Internet Draft) as
the basis for a new addressing architecture for the 6bone, and the basis to
start renumbering experiments.

A4. Discussion of David Meyer's Internet Draft on "Representing IPv6
Tunnels in RPSL" so it may be included in the RPSL design at the RPS WG.

A5. Discussion of David Kessens' new 6BONE registry, whether to switch to
it, and if so, when.

A6. Discussion of Bill Manning's ideas on using DNS for localized 6bone
routing registry information.

A7. Volunteers to help Bob Fink with an Internet Draft on requirements for
new 6bone infrastructure.

A8. Performa a survey of host and router implementations in use on the
6bone, so the information may be made available through the 6bone web pages.

- end