[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
3gpp-analysis-04: tunnels out of 3GPP operator's network
Hi,
In section 3.2.2, "Tunneling outside the 3GPP Operator's Network",
describes the case where the 3GPP operator has to obtain Internet
connectivity through a tunnel.
My concern comes from the second-to-last paragraph:
Usage of manually configured "IPv6 in IPv4" tunneling is sensible
if the number of the tunnels can be kept limited. It is assumed
that a maximum of 10-15 configured "IPv6 in IPv4" tunnels from the
3GPP network towards the ISP / Internet should be sufficient.
This seems to be mixing issues with tunneling inside the 3GPP operator's
network. Why on earth would 3GPP operator have more than 10-15 configured
tunnels *out* of its network? This and the last paragraph would seem to
indicate some confusion or misunderstanding.
I also see little need for the text in the previous paragraph:
Defining the tunnel endpoint depends on the
deployment scenario. The authors want to avoid duplicating work and
note here that the ISP transition scenarios are analyzed in [ISP-
scen] and [ISP-analysis].
(How many ways can you define a tunnel end-point??)
I'd remove the last paragraph completely (as was already mentioned in some
other issue), and reword the two last ones to like:
If the ISP only provides IPv4 connectivity, then the IPv6 traffic
initiated from the 3GPP network should be transported tunneled in
IPv4 to the ISP.
Usage of manually configured "IPv6 in IPv4" tunneling is the
best approach, as the number of the tunnels outside of the 3GPP
network is very limited; no more than a couple of tunnels should
be needed.
ISP transition scenarios are described in [ISP-scen] and
[ISP-analysis].
(or leave the last one out completely; it should already be addresses in
at the start of section 3.2)
====
3.2.2 Tunneling outside the 3GPP Operator's Network
This subsection includes the case when the peer node is outside the
operator's network. In that case the "IPv6 in IPv4" tunnel starting
point can be in the operator's network - encapsulating node can be
e.g. the GGSN or the edge router.
The case is pretty straightforward if the upstream ISP provides
native IPv6 connectivity to the Internet. If there is no native
IPv6 connectivity available in the 3GPP network, an "IPv6 in IPv4"
tunnel should be configured from e.g. the GGSN to the dual stack
border gateway in order to access the upstream ISP.
If the ISP only provides IPv4 connectivity, then the IPv6 traffic
initiated from the 3GPP network should be transported tunneled in
IPv4 to the ISP. Defining the tunnel endpoint depends on the
deployment scenario. The authors want to avoid duplicating work and
note here that the ISP transition scenarios are analyzed in [ISP-
scen] and [ISP-analysis].
Usage of manually configured "IPv6 in IPv4" tunneling is sensible
if the number of the tunnels can be kept limited. It is assumed
that a maximum of 10-15 configured "IPv6 in IPv4" tunnels from the
3GPP network towards the ISP / Internet should be sufficient.
On the other hand, usage of dynamic tunneling, such as "6to4", can
also be considered, but scalability problems arise when thinking
about the great number of UEs in the 3GPP networks. The specific
limitation when applying "6to4" in 3GPP networks should also be
taken into account, as commented in 3.2.1. Other issues to keep in
mind with respect to the "6to4" mechanism are that reverse DNS is
not yet completely solved and there are some security
considerations associated with the use of "6to4" relay routers (see
[6to4SEC]). Moreover, in a later phase of the transition period,
there will be a need for assigning new, native IPv6 addresses to
all "6to4" nodes in order to enable native IPv6 connectivity.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings