RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

[<juha.wiljakka@nokia.com>]

Hi, Pekka!

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
Sent: 19 December, 2002 10:28

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
> 
>  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.

JW: Yep, the development direction goes IPv4-only backbones ->
dual stack backbones (and finally in the future -> IPv6 backbones),
given recommendations depend on the status of IPv6 deployment
in particular operator's network.

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.

JW: Maybe not so 3GPP specific at all, transition issues (like
where to use which tunneling mechanism) are general.

>  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: OK, this is more or less a question of definition, I can discuss that 
with the other authors. Anyway, I do not want to concentrate only on 'operator's
network internal' cases in our document. Like our abstract says,
    In these scenarios, the 
    User Equipment (UE) connects to nodes in other networks, e.g. in 
    the Internet, and IPv6/IPv4 transition mechanisms are needed
 
>  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.