Re: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 juha.wiljakka@nokia.com wrote:
> Our proposed solution concluding that "In most 3GPP scenarios it is
> preferred to use manually configured tunnels or EGP/IGP based tunneling
> mechanisms." is written in "3GPP analysis" chapter 3.2.
> 
> In my comment below I just refer to using "IPv6 in IPv4" tunnels from
> the operator's network to other IPv6 islands - configured tunneling
> makes sense, if there is a limited number of other IPV6 islands you need
> to connect to. Note that we also state
> 
>    "However, manually 
>     configured tunnels can be an administrative burden when the number 
>     of islands and therefore tunnels rises. Therefore it is also 
>     possible to use dynamic tunneling mechanisms such as "6to4" 
>     [RFC3056] and IGP/EGP routing protocol based tunneling mechanisms 
>     [BGP][IGP]."
> 
> in our analysis doc.

I think one should keep in mind that it's not necessary to reach every 
IPv6 island directly (a usual justification for e.g. IGP/EGP tunneling).

I think we can pretty much discard [BGP][IGP] from scenario 2 too -- 
they're applicable for smaller-than-Internet scopes, which scenario 2 does 
not seem to be at all.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext BELOEIL Luc FTRD/DMI/CAE [mailto:luc.beloeil@rd.francetelecom.com]
> Sent: 17 December, 2002 13:52
> 
> Can you clarify: "What if we already have some static "IPv6 in IPv4" tunnels configured from the operator's network to, say, IPv6 internet / 6bone and there is IPv6 connection to node B?"
> My small experience shows that configuring static tunnels becomes quickly boring. I would prefer a 6to4-based solution. But it seems that security issues are remaining... I have to check that.
> Luc
> 
> 
> -------- Message d'origine-------- 
> De: juha.wiljakka@nokia.com [mailto:juha.wiljakka@nokia.com] 
> Date: mar. 17/12/2002 12:23 
> À: Anand.Thakur@hpsglobal.com 
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> Objet: RE: 3gpp scenario 2
> 
> 
> Anand,
> 
> I assume that this is a very common problem / environment in initial IPv6 deployment, i.e. two separate IPv6 islands connected by IPv4 network using "IPv6 in IPv4" tunneling and solutions have already been thought by several (DNS) experts.
> 
> What if we already have some static "IPv6 in IPv4" tunnels configured from the operator's network to, say, IPv6 internet / 6bone and there is IPv6 connection to node B?
> 
> I am very happy to receive more comments on this issue.
> 
> Thanks,
>         -Juha-
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Thakur, Anand [mailto:Anand.Thakur@hpsglobal.com]
> Sent: 17 December, 2002 13:01
> To: Wiljakka Juha (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: V6ops (E-mail)
> Subject: 3gpp scenario 2
> 
> 
> hi huha,
> i was just wondering about the scenario in which 2 IPV6 UEs communicate over
> an IPV4 network. In this scenario won't initial DNS resolution be a very
> difficult job (if not impossible)?
> If you have not understood my question read this example:
> Let Host A be on IPV6 netork X and Host B on IPV6 network Y. Now, if A makes
> a DNS query ("A") for B, none of the name resolvers in network X will have
> an entry for B . How will this query finally reach network Y, assuming all
> intermediate routers are IPV4 only? Will A have to explicitly tunnel this
> request to network Y? I am also assuming that DNS servers in the IPV4
> internet don't support "AAAA".
> 
> regards
> Anand Thakur
> HCL Perot Systems (A SEI CMM Level 5 Company)
> Plot No 3, Sector 125, NOIDA (UP)-201301, India
> * Tel  +91 120 4432755-79, X3348 (EPABX)
> mobile:9811748512
> 

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords