[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 3gpp-analysis-05: Automatic tunneling inside 3GPP operator's network
> > Connection redundancy should also be noted as an important
> > requirement in 3GPP networks. Static tunnels on their
> own don't
> > provide a routing recovery solution for all scenarios
> where an IPv6
> > route goes down. However, they may provide an adequate
> solution
> > depending on the design of the network and in presence
> of other
> > router redundancy mechanisms. On the other hand, redundancy can
> > be obtained by running IGP/EGP based tunneling mechanisms or by
> > running an IPv6 routing protocol over the manually configured
> > tunnels described previously.
>
> I don't think this is OK. First of all, this overlaps with
> ISP work.
> From the ISP work, we can say for certainty that manual IPv6
> tunnels and
> running an IPv6 routing protocol over them will be considered as good
> practice. After all, tunnel is just a link layer; you run
> IPv6 routing
> protocols over your native infrastructure -- there is zero difference
> here. I don't think there have been sufficient reasoning
> presented to say
> anything of IGP/EGP based mechanisms running over IPv4
> networks in this
> context.
First, it is available in some products so there is a reason.
You are proposing that we run multiple routing protocol instances,
one for IPv4 and one for IPv6 inside the tunnels.
The alternative is obviously to integrate this info in one routing
protocol. I am no routing expert, but what's so strange with this?
I'm not against the former but I can't see how the latter can
be a worse solution.
>
> As it is, I don't want to see any specific "marketing" here
> for IGP/EGP
> based mechanisms.
Did you really intend to say that I am doing "marketing"?
If so I think you are mistaken, I have no interest in any of
those drafts. Rather it is quite obvious you don't approve of
them. Should I understand from this that the routing WGs and
IETF in general does not want any such mechanisms to be used
or is it your personal opinion?
> We'll have to properly analyze it first.
> There have
> been no arguments which require it in this context, so the
> work should be
> done with ISP scenarios. Therefore, I'd really prefer to
> keep the current
> text to the basics, like:
>
> Connection redundancy should also be noted as an important
> requirement in 3GPP networks. Running an IPv6 routing protocol
> over static tunnels, as one would run IPv6 routing protocols over
> native infrastructure, provides a well-known routing
> recovery solution.
Are you really saying that we have more experience in running IPv6
routing protocols over static tunnels than e.g. BGP-based tunneling?
It's the first time I hear this...
>
> and reword:
>
> Even a dynamic tunneling mechanism or an IGP/EGP routing protocol
> based tunneling mechanism can be considered if other methods are
> not suitable.
>
> to something like:
>
> Even a dynamic tunneling mechanism or a routing protocol
> based tunneling mechanism could be considered if other
> methods are
> not suitable. Whether this is really needed is to be
> analyzed at ISP
> scenarios/solutions work.
...while running an IPv6 routing protocol inside a tunnel is OK
anyway independently of the ISP work? Doesn't make sense.
>
> <chair hat=on>
> When we get to the Last Call, I will plan to (in any case,
> whatever the outcome) list a few particularly controversial
> points to try
> to get more WG feedback on what it thinks the good approach here.
> However, it's (IMHO) better to be minimalistic from the
> start and expand
> if really necessary, as we should keep things simple (if not
> simpler).
> <chair hat=off>
I appreciate the intention to keep things simple and get WG feedback,
but if we keep on removing details and adding opinions regarding
IPv6 deployment in mobile nets then the document will not be
useful to 3gpp operators and manufacturers any more.
/Karim