[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus
[consolidated answers to Gert and John's postings]
> Gert Doering wrote:
> This is similar to the definiton that Arano-san and I tried to bring
> into the new policy document, to define "what is an LIR".
Makes sense to me.
> I do think, though, that you cannot make a LIR provider-independent,
> and this should not be "PI" - we *want* aggregated routing, otherwise
> the routing system *will* break.
I agree; I should have been more precise. If LIRs were to assign local
PI prefixes to sites, these prefixes must not leak individually into the
DFZ's routing table, only an aggregate.
>> Have a look at [MHAP]
>> http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/draft-py-mhap-01a.txt
> John Crain wrote:
> I couldn't find this amongst the Internet Drafts. I searched the
> rfc-editor site and the ietf site?
The last submitted to the IETF would be:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-py-multi6-mhtp-01.txt
Still valid (until May 20), but the protocol has been renamed from MHTP
to MHAP recently and has not been submitted to the RFC editor yet, so
you should really read mhap-01a instead.
> Is this being discussed in a working group?
It was submitted to the defunct multi6 WG and is now a working doc of
the ipv6mh mailing list.
Michel.
-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net
