Questions about RIPE registry

[Bob Fink]

David,

At 02:31 PM 4/29/98 -0700, davidk@ISI.EDU wrote:
>
>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,

I think we should take your advice... stick to the 'IPv6 in IPv6' trick
until you can do a conversion to RPSL sometime in the future as appropriate.

Thanks for the quick answer.


Bob