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

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Dave Thaler wrote:
> 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.

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

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
>> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:04 AM
>> To: mboned@ietf.org
>> Subject: [MBONED] addrarch: resurrect IPv4 unicast-prefix-based?
>>
>> 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 Given that with 4-byte ASNs, GLOP is no longer applicable (the first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
>> MBONED@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
>
>

-- 
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
MBONED@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned