more tunnels and what to do next (fwd)

[mankin@ISI.EDU (Allison Mankin)]

Steve,

> for those more centrally located routers, I think we should exert effort
> to get RIPng deployed and working -- that ought to be relatively
> straightforward, and in my opinion, a better use of time than tryng to
> get agreement on yet another interim addressing plan.
> 

Yes.  Craig Labovitz (MERIT) has developed a RIPv2 for IPv6,
which some sites on this list have been testing.  

> Flat routing with RIPng should suffice for hundreds of routes; beyond that,
> we clearly need hierarchical routing, but that should probably also
> coincide with moving to "real" addresses, rather than the test addresses.
> 
> 
Those quotes around real are very poignant. 
Can we later this year have an interim draft 
for aggregatable addresses?  I would like to see it be
geographic addressing without all the details resolved:  
Instead of Alain's "cores", your design team could
give us interim neutral interconnects, leaving
out for this cut how the "real" ones will manage internal
routing.

Just a wish,

Allison