a 6bone topology discussion

[Dimitry Haskin]

> 
> Thus I would propose that we adopt the following:
> 
> 1.  Agree among us who the "core" backbone sites are, based on them either
> being an ISP (e.g., WIDE, JOIN, G6, ESnet, CICNet) or someone seriously
> committed to simulating one, at least for this phase of the 6bone (e.g.,
> Bay, Cisco, Digital, NRL).
>
Yes we need to define the core backbone sites but they can not be limited
to ISPs on 6bone.  Of cause ISPs are welcome to offer commercial grade 
IPv6 services independently.  As it stands now some non-ISP sites are
more IPv6-commited than ISP ones and may provide better services to their
clients.

> 
> 5.  Leaf/stub sites would then request a tunnel of a transit or backbone
> site based on the IPv4 topology as much as possible.  The goal would be to
> not traverse the world just to get across town (so to speak) if there is a
> practical choice just across town.
>
This can be recommended but cannot be required.  There are other than
topology considerations that can't be ignored.

Dimitry