[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2
> > If we can run something like MP-BGP over v4
> > isn't that better?
>
> If that requires additional infrastructure, like upgrading
> your routers to
> support the extension, configure full BGP mesh of peerings
> between all the
> islands, or the like -- perhaps not.
It depends on the network of course. If you already have
a fully-meshed BGP network then you could introduce new
ipv6 islands with dual-stack edge routers and have them
talk MP-BGP. You'd introduce the same infrastructure as if
you were running configured tunnels.
>
> But I'm not completely opposed to the idea: if, for some
> reason I couldn't
> fathom, the operator was running MPLS core network, MP-BGP
> over v4 just
> _might_ be a good solution if the number of the islands is high.
I only used MP-BGP over v4 as an example of v6 route advertisement.
I was in no way meaning to focus on the MPLS solution. Any
tunnelling mechanism can be used.
>
> But I don't believe we should be designing to cope with
> every possible
> cornercase (whether this is one is another question) -- then
> we'd get
> nothing done, and would end up requiring all kinds of transition
> mechanisms -- I *don't* want, based on 3GPP analysis, that we end up
> requiring standardization of [BGP] or [IGP] because there's some
> perceived need for deployment.
If we're recommending too many mechanisms I would agree, but we're only
recommending two mechanisms: static configured and EGP/IGP. I think that's a
good balance for now and it gives implementers and network designers some
direction but also some flexibility. From my experience in mobile network
design I think a set of tools for different scenarios is what is needed
rather than a single option.
/Karim