Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:01 PM, Ronald.vanderPol@rvdp.org wrote:
> > But it also misses something basic - the value that IPv6 brings to 
> > the party is mostly related to increasing the address pool. If that 
> > is not true, if we have enough IPv4 addresses that we can build 
> > parallel networks everywhere, then we don't need a new protocol in 
> > the first place. If it is true (and it is) then you have to assume 
> > that there will be edge networks and service networks that are 
> > IPv6-only or IPv6-dominant pretty early - pick your reason. Once you 
> > have an IPv6-only/dominant service network, you have the question of 
> > IPv4 hosts having to use it to communicate over it, 
> > IPv6-only/dominant hosts needing to communicate over 
> > IPv4-only/dominant networks, and IPv6-only hosts needing to 
> > communicate with IPv4-only hosts.
>
> You seem to assume also that upgrading the IPv4-only network to dual 
> stack is not an option.

No. I presume that it is optional, and I know of a number of networks 
that as we speak are deploying in a form that Jim Bound at the March 
meeting described as "ipv6-only"or "ipv6-dominant". IPv6-only is what 
it sounds like; IPv6-dominant is the case where a network deploys dual 
stacked but offers no IPv4 service to its customers.

> Isn't the main reason for tunneling the fact that too few networks are 
> deploying IPv6? Trying to force IPv6 deployment by creating 
> complicated tunnel overlays seems to me like wrong engineering.

In the discussion I had with a university network this afternoon, it 
was to connect the IPv4 islands over the central IPv6 infrastructure.

Yes, we had that discussion too, and continue to have it. But I have 
never particularly noticed that the fact that I thought my customer was 
doing something unnecessarily self-limiting ever made much of a dent.