Subject: [MBONED] addrarch: resurrect IPv4 unicast-prefix-based?

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:03:36 +0200 (EET)

Summarizing this part of the discussion,

Given that with 4-byte ASNs, GLOP is no longer applicable (the first 
4-byte *ONLY* ASN could take a few years to appear, some 4-byte ASNs 
have already been tested though), there was some discussion of IPv4 
unicast-prefix-based mechanism 
[draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast] which expired in 2004 due to 
lack of no clear benefit (compared to GLOP, for instance).

Lenny argued for resurrecting the draft so that IANA would not need to 
be consulted so often to get addresses.  Marshall noted that in many 
(current) cases where a requestor wants addresses and GLOP doesn't 
satisfy, they don't have enough v4 addresses either.  Toerless seemed 
supportive of resurrecting ipv4-uni-based-mcast.  John Kristoff also 
supported this approach.

As there didn't seem to be objection, and there is a new user group 
(upcoming 4byte ASN holders) that didn't exist when the draft expired, 
this might be sufficient inclination that there is interest in it. 
I'll note that doing so will require a /8 of address space.

What do the chairs think of this?  Is this something that can be taken 
up?  Who'd be the editor?  What kind of schedule would we have for 
pushing this through (should ADDRARCH wait for this or not)?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:03:36 +0200 (EET)

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:35:09 -0800

I let the document expire due to lack of strong interest.
If there is interest, I am willing to continue as editor.

I am not aware of current open issues or unresolved comments, but 
there are some boilerplate things that would need to be fixed up to
conform to the latest I-D guidelines (the copyright notice for instance)
before resubmitting.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:04 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MBONED] addrarch: resurrect IPv4 unicast-prefix-based?
>

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:35:09 -0800

-Dave

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:44:49 +0200 (EET)

> conform to the latest I-D guidelines (the copyright notice for instance)

I'd certainly support this move, though if we go down this path, I'd 
hope we could get this published quickly.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:44:49 +0200 (EET)