Re: AW: IPv6 in MPLS Networks

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Bonness, Olaf wrote:
[...]
> Besides that, the costs for updating the software of several
> thousands of routers are pretty high (in comparission to the actual
> IPv6 business case ;-), so that IMHO the BGPTUNNEL is a very good
> approach (at least for the first step !) for an IPv6 service offer
> based on a MPLS backbone. The later steps of an IPv6 integration
> could be than approach 2 and approach 1 from your email. (BTW
> sometimes you have to upgrade your HW as well if you want to realise
> "native" IPv6 MPLS and thats real expensive.)

I think typically the number of PE routers is much higher than the 
number of core routers.  This would seem to imply that upgrading the 
core is irrelevant nuisance compared to upgrading PE routers.  That 
is, if you already have to upgrade 1000 PE routers -- and if v6 
doesn't work properly, the customers attached to those are screwed 
anyway -- upgrading 50 core routers is not so big an issue, when put 
into the perspective.

Further, all of this, the lack of business case etc., can be avoided
by using configured tunneling instead.  Until you have enough
customers, etc., you could just set up a more hierarchical topology --
no need to bother with a full mesh. Simple and robust, requiring zero
new mechanisms.

In a few years time it might even be that those routers which were
unable to do real IPv6 forwarding have been phased out and native IPv6
(or directly over MPLS)  introduction in the core is possible.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings