Re: Take VLAN usage as WG document?

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Gert Doering wrote:
> I think it would make a useful informational document.
>
> Personally, I find this approach "obvious" - but that's only because
> I've already been through the process of wondering how to bring IPv6 to
> our VLAN infrastructure (which was served by a VLAN router that was
> conveniently declared as "End of Life" just one OS release before
> the general introduction of IPv6), and ended up doing it exactly
> this way - the existing IPv4 router stays, a new box for IPv6 only
> VLAN routing is built (which is not as powerful as the IPv4 router, but
> sufficient for v6).

(without any hats, of course.)

I also think this makes a useful document.  As with Gert, we've used 
VLANs in the scenario where an upgrade of the v4 router was not an 
option (because s/w was not available, due to concerns about its 
stability and performance, etc.), and used both separate PC routers, 
and "real" routers to act as v6 routers for a LAN.

We've now phased those out, because we moved to full dual-stack, but 
the situation is likely to come up again for others, and it's worth 
documenting.

However, it's also worth documenting the concerns raised by Heikki 
Vatiainen wrt. the enterprise document that separate IP topologies in 
the same links are likely to cause maintenance nightmares in the long 
term.  We certainly had those concerns ourselves.

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