RE: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

Brian, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:46 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: rrg@psg.com
> Subject: Re: [RRG] LISP, IPv6 and 6to4
> 
> On 2007-12-07 15:55, 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?
> 
> (Having also read your exchanges with Tony.)
> 
> I'm not sure why we would need to do this. Sure, it maintains
> the 6to4 primary goal of *not* importing IPv4 DFZ entropy
> into the future DFZ, but why does it help us deploy IPv6,
> compared with just deploying IPv6?

Consider that incremental 6to4 deployment is already under
way under the 2002::/16 prefix space. The deployment includes
6to4 relay routers that relay traffic from the 2002::/16 prefix
space to reach nodes in sites that configure non-2002::/16
prefixes. With this incremental deployment already under way,
we could say that:

  - new sites that deploy native IPv6 prefixes (i.e., prefixes
    other 2001::/16 and 2002::/16) must also deploy ITR/ETRs
    at their outermost borders and must support a map/encaps
    scheme like LISP/APT
  - 6to4 relay routers must be configured to also act as ITRs
    so that nodes in 6to4-only sites will be able to reach
    nodes in non-6to4 sites, i.e., they must be configured
    as LISP/APT proxy tunnel routers
  - 6to4-only sites should begin to deploy ITR/ETRs, at which
    point they can begin to deploy native IPv6 prefixes and
    phase out 6to4

So, as you say below, 6to4 use would eventually fade, and
a full LISP/APT IPv6 Internet would result with ITR/ETRs
everywhere. (All of this IMHO, of course.)

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.
  

> When we run out of IPv4
> prefixes three years from now, the incentive to use 6to4 as
> a deployment mechanism will fade, and the incentive will be
> the availability of native IPv6 prefixes. (I have little doubt
> that LISP will be able to enfold IPv6 easily enough when
> the time comes.)
>
>     Brian

--
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