RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

[<juha.wiljakka@nokia.com>]

Pekka,

can you give more (specific) comments on the applicability of IGP/EGP based tunneling mechanisms in scenario 2?  Scalability seems to be your main concern?

Thanks,
	-Juha-

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
Sent: 17 December, 2002 21:10

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.