[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2
on Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:20 AM Pekka Savola wrote:
>2) outside the GPRS network, between the operator's network and the
>Internet IPv6 (islands): there is no doubt some tunneling over IPv4 will
>be needed _somewhere_. But where?
>a) if the 3GPP operator is connected natively to an v6-enabled ISP, the
>3GPP operator himself does not necessarily have to do anything: he can
>more or less assume someone else (e.g. his ISP) is doing the bridging
>between these IPv6 islands.
> b) if the 3GPP operator is connected to some IPv4 and IPv6 networks, it
>may want to perform tunneling to some IPv6 islands over IPv4 itself. This
>is just a matter of routing and policy.
I think this is a very valid point and more or less summarizes a solution to
scenario2. Correct me if i am wrong, but 2a) seems to indicate the
following:
+--------------+
+--------------+
native IPV6 connectivity | X's ISP | V6 conn.
| Y's ISP | native IPV6 connectivity
_____________|
|______________| |__________________
/ +-------------+
+--------------+ \
/
\
+---------------------/-----+
+---------------------------+
+---------------------\-----+
| IPV6 network X |___V4________ | IPV4 internet
|______V4_____________| V6 island Y |
| (3gpp operator) | |
| | |
+--------------------------+
+--------------------------+
+---------------------------+
These diagrams are time consuming, but they say a picture is worth a
thousand words !!
So, basically a parallel IPV6 internet is existing with the IPV4 internet?
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [SMTP:pekkas@netcore.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:20 AM
> To: juha.wiljakka@nokia.com
> Cc: luc.beloeil@rd.francetelecom.com; Anand.Thakur@hpsglobal.com;
> v6ops@ops.ietf.org; alain.durand@sun.com; Karim.El-Malki@era.ericsson.se
> Subject: RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 juha.wiljakka@nokia.com wrote:
> > 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> But if this is important, here something like [BGP][IGP] could be usable.
>
> Not required, really, or maybe not even optimal, but they could be used.
>
> 2) outside the GPRS network, between the operator's network and the
> Internet IPv6 (islands): there is no doubt some tunneling over IPv4 will
> be needed _somewhere_. But where?
>
> a) if the 3GPP operator is connected natively to an v6-enabled ISP, the
> 3GPP operator himself does not necessarily have to do anything: he can
> more or less assume someone else (e.g. his ISP) is doing the bridging
> between these IPv6 islands.
>
> b) if the 3GPP operator is connected to some IPv4 and IPv6 networks, it
> may want to perform tunneling to some IPv6 islands over IPv4 itself. This
>
> is just a matter of routing and policy.
>
> However, considering these two specific tools:
>
> [IGP] is used in IGP only and IGP is not run across administrative
> borders; so it's clearly useless.
>
> [BGP] could theoretically be used, but its main area of applicability is
> to enable automatic tunneling over IPv4-enabled core using IPv4/6 edge
> routers (the typical case being an ISP's MPLS core network). If this was
> applied to the general Internet, it would basically mean that
> participating islands would have to be have BGP sessions between them
> using some tunneling techinique like 6to4, IPv4 eBGP multihop, etc.
>
> So it seems to me neither of these is applicable in the context 2).
>
> Perhaps this clarifies my point?
>
> > -----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.
> >
>
> --
> 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