[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