Another rebel meeting at 3.30, was: Re: My impressions of the Sundaymeetings....

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

Hi everyone,

We're going to have another "rebel" meeting this afternoon at 3.30.
We'll meet in front of the consulate room, as we're still waiting to see
if we can officially book a room or we have to be creative again.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> Second, almost everyone agreed that the final solution will need to be
> or involve a new routing paradigm in one way or the other.

Yes. However, I'm also getting a sense that most people agree we can't
wait this long. Christian took some steps down an incremental steps path
towards multi-address multihoming, and there are also more than enough
ideas for low-ambition routing solutions to take the edge off.

Another interesting development is that the v6ops wg just reached
consensus that it should work on non-routable/for-local-use-only address
provider independent address space that should be used as a replacement
for site local addresses for most uses. And immediately people started
yelling this address space should be routable after all.

> This said, what I felt was that there was no clear views (sometimes not
> even from the authors) what role the solutions currently being
> discussed would fill in going forward. Either in relation to a new
> routing solution or to what solution space they addressed. I said in
> the small group that met at 14.00 that what I felt was missing was an
> overview of the pieces both in the solution space as well as in
> defining what the problem space is. Thomas Narten put this even better
> in the evening session when he said that we where missing a road-map. I
> agree with this, but I am willing to go a bit further. After listening
> to some of the discussions and reading the proposals, I am not so sure
> the current requirements draft will be a good starting point.

So lets discuss this in the meeting this afternoon. As I'm out of
contact with the other "rebels" I'm not going to suggest a full agenda
right now, but this should definately be on it.

[Lots removed]

> One way going forward that I prefer is to ask IANA delegate a
> _temporary_ PI space prefix - with the _clear notion that this address
> space will be called back_. This space would be allocated as "RIR
> ALLOCATED PA" in RIPE terminology. This would give us a jump-start and
> let some enterprises start out with trying multihoming, and IPv6 in
> general. It will also give us more operational experience and perhaps
> give us answers to some of my questions above. The additional prefixes
> created is something we can handle (with the current ~250 non-6bone
> prefixes I would say the problem is rather on the contrary), and with
> clear guidelines on when and how the addresses will be called back this
> should not be to hard to accept by the enterprises.

There are more ways to skin this cat. Now I haven't been a great fan of
what's happening with the requirements in this wg, but for this specific
purpose it might be useful to draw up some requirements.

Iljitsch