RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 Ext-Ivan.Laloux@nokia.com wrote:
> Hi Pekka, some comments below (marked <<iLS>>):
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
> Sent: 18 December, 2002 22:50
> To: Wiljakka Juha (NMP/Tampere)
> 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
> 
> [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).
> 
> ---
> 
> <<iLS>> [BGP] defines 2 different deployment options: the first one
> assumes MP-BGP implementation over IPv4 (identification of MP-BGP edge
> routers by their IPv4 addresses, using trivial 6in4 tunneling), while
> the second one assumes MP-BGP implementation over IPv6, thus needing to
> rely on some existing tunneling technique (as you mentioned before). Why
> can't we just consider the first approach, avoiding the need for any
> additional tunneling mechanisms?

For automatic tunneling inside the 3GPP operator, yes.

For Internet, no. It'd require that you would have IPv4 BGP peerings to
IPv6 islands in the internet -- which is obviously a non-starter
(scalability, requirement for multihop IPv4 BGP sessions with folks you
don't know about, etc.).

-- 
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