RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 juha.wiljakka@nokia.com wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
> Sent: 18 December, 2002 23:50
> 
> 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.
> 
>  JW: I agree with Karim's later comments that many GPRS operators already 
> have IPv4 backbone networks (gradually migrating them while introducing 
> IPv6 islands). And native v6 backbones are quite rare in the first phases 
> of the transition. We can write clearer 'applicability statement' for the use
> of [BGP] / [IGP]. 

Sure, but my thought is that dual-stack v4/v6 backbones already exist, and
are definitely on the rise.  It's not like 3GPP networks are deploying
today or tomorrow.  Often setting up the infrastructure required to
install something like BGP/IGP tunneling is greater than the pain of 
configured tunneling or dual-stack backbone.

In any case, I'm not sure how specific this discussion is to 3GPP.  
Depending on how you view the operator, seems pretty close to ISP (or 
enterprise) network.

> Another thing we should do is to more clearly separate
> 'inside the operator's network' and 'outside the operator's network' cases in
> the next revision!

Definitely agree :-)

>  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.
> 
>  JW: Well, yes...this looks like an easy case and starts to be close to 
> the scope of the ISP design team..  :-)

Definitely...

If the 3GPP operator does tunneling over IPv4 Internet, IMO it should be 
considered 3GPP operator/ISP, and then ISP parts would apply.  Nothing 
really 3GPP-specific as I see it.
 
>  JW: Thanks for your opinion, I can quite clearly see that your basic
> recommendation for this case 2b) is to use a couple of configured 
> tunnels?

Yes -- but it depends quite a bit on how many ISP functions the 3GPP
operator wants to perform (indeed, I believe most of them are ISP's of
some sort themselves) -- and then the issue about external connectivity
seems a bit moot.

My point is that I don't see anything 3GPP -specific in the Internet case.  
Either it gets connectivity to other IPv6 sites through its ISP's or
transits, or connects to some of them directly ("acting as ISP doing 
peering").  The latter is unscalable.

-- 
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