[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4
Tony,
I guess I will have just one more word on this. If the LISP
sites are organized as dual-stack nodes that have IPv6 addresses
that appear as EIDs for LISP, but use IPv4 private addresses for
the site-internal organization, then there is dual-stack and no
need for NAT-PT.
This is exactly the use case scenario for ISATAP.
Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin, Fred L
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:44 AM
> To: Tony Li
> Cc: rrg@psg.com
> Subject: RE: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4
>
> Tony,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony Li [mailto:tli@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 9:33 AM
> > To: Templin, Fred L
> > Cc: rrg@psg.com
> > Subject: Re: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4
> >
> >
> > Fred,
> >
> > Where did you hide the NAT-PT box? And, once you have the NAT-PT
> > box, why do you need LISP involved?
>
> I'm not sure it needs to be NAT-PT due to dual stack and/or
> IPv4-in-IPv6 tunneling, but if NAT-PT were used then I don't
> know why it wouldn't be co-located on the ITR.
>
> There was an entire discussion session in v6ops yesterday
> on tunneling vs translation that involved much more-informed
> individuals than myself, and AFAICT there were no conclusions.
> So, it would be wrong for me to hazard a guess as to which way
> is better at this point.
>
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > On Dec 7, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >
> > > Tony,
> > >
> > >> Could such a host access IPv4 sites?
> > >
> > > Sure; IMHO, leave the IPv4 Internet in-place and (as someone
> > > once articulated to me) "build a second story" on top of the
> > > existing foundation.
> > >
> > > Fred
> > > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Tony Li [mailto:tli@cisco.com]
> > >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:57 PM
> > >> To: Templin, Fred L
> > >> Cc: rrg@psg.com
> > >> Subject: Re: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I am wondering why there hasn't been more discussion about
> > >>> using LISP as the vehicle to get us to IPv6, e.g. by having
> > >>> EIDs as IPv6 addresses and RLOCs as IPv4 addresses from the
> > >>> onset. A hallway discussion brought up the subject of
> > >>> incremental deployment, but why can't we just use 6to4
> > >>> as the bootstrapping vehicle to get us to LISP/IPv6?
> > >>>
> > >>> By this, I mean that nodes having 2002::/16 EIDs are handled
> > >>> using 6to4 and have the same deployment profile as for 6to4
> > >>> today. Then, we require that nodes having non-6to4 EIDs be
> > >>> deployed behind ETRs. If we then also say that 6to4 relay
> > >>> routers must configure themselves as ITRs and do the necessary
> > >>> map-and-encaps, we have an incremental deployment profile.
> > >>>
> > >>> Any thoughts on this?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Fred,
> > >>
> > >> Could such a host access IPv4 sites?
> > >>
> > >> Tony
> > >>
> >
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
> word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
>
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg