Questions about RIPE registry

[davidk@ISI.EDU]

Bob, Marius,

Bob Fink writes:
> 
> At 02:54 PM 4/29/98 +0200, Jan Marius Evang wrote:
> >How Should I indicate that two sites are connected, not by a tunnel,
> >but by an ATM link?
> 
> Goos question.  The ipv6-site description:
> 
> 	http://www.ISI.EDU/~davidk/6bone/draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-registry-02.txt
> 
> 
> doesn't seem to have anything specified but tunnels for links.  
> 
> I've cc'd David Kessens on this, maybe he has a a good idea how to do this
> (time for an addition to the ipv6-site object?).

So far, we have gotten around this by doing something that is strictly not
correct, but works for now ... :

use 'IPv6 in IPv6' as the encapsulation in a tunnel attribute

I do think that this should be fixed. However, fixing this probaly
opens up a can of worms since we will find all kind of other problems
that needs fixing too. In the end we will find that we most likely
need to move to RPSL. RPSL has much more power to specify what you
want.

Although I would like it to be different, I am not entirely ready to
introduce the full power of RPSL right now (we are currently busy with
the transition to RPSL for the IPv4 world) and therefore it might be
best to use the 'IPv6 in IPv6' trick for the coming months.

I am willing to do a quick fix if people indicate that that is
preferred, but I would rather go for a more consistent solution that
will take a bit more waiting time from you,

David K.
---