RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

["Thakur, Anand" <Anand.Thakur@hpsglobal.com>]

>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.


by IPV6 islands are we reffering to entire PLMNs being IPV6? if yes, then
will an IPV4 UE be able to perform GPRS attach to an IPV6 PLMN (island)?


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:	Karim El-Malki (EAB) [SMTP:Karim.El-Malki@era.ericsson.se]
> Sent:	Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:59 AM
> To:	'Pekka Savola '; '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 (EAB)
> Subject:	RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2
> 
> 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