RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

["Karim El-Malki (EAB)" <Karim.El-Malki@era.ericsson.se>]

Hi Pekka

>Let's consider the possible cases here (perhaps it should be clarified 
>which is the case in the particular scenario):
>
>1) inside the GPRS network: if the 3GPP operator has a large backbone,
>it
>may not have native IPv6 everywhere.  Tunneling may have to be used
>there.

This is exactly the case. The tunnelling mechanisms paragraph
mentions explicitly the case where it applies:
    
    In a 3GPP 
    network, one IPv6 island could contain the GGSN while another 
    island contains the operator's IPv6 application servers....

>
>Personally I think this is a non-issue, because as 3GPP is so heavily 
>IPv6, I don't see why anyone would bother deploying it without all the 
>network infrastructure (or most of it so it doesn't really matter) being
>IPv6-enabled.

I don't agree. Most operators already have IPv4 backbone networks and
many would want to migrate them gradually while introducing IPv6
islands. So it does not make sense to base our recommendations on
native IPv6 operator backbones only. The IGP/EGP mechanism is for
the case in which the operator is not ready to upgrade the
backbone.

>
>But if this is important, here something like [BGP][IGP] could be
>usable.  

OK, so I think we agree that this scenario makes sense.

Rgds
/Karim