[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RV: I-D ACTION:draft-baker-v6ops-end2end-00.txt

On Aug 15, 2005, at 2:25 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Overall, agree with your conclusions about 3.3, but I think there is one more scenario, which is the one that we are facing, and seems to me the right way to go, actually the natural one, being deployed with some of our customers.

      ,---.                                                  ,---.
     /     \                                                /     \
    /       \                                              /       \
   ; IPv4+6  :                                            ; IPv4+6  :
   | Network |                                            | Network |
   :      +----+---.        ,---.       ,---.       ,---+----+      ;
    \     |GW-A|    \      /     \     /     \     /    |GW-D|     /
     \    +----+     +----+       \   /      +----+     +----+    /
      `---' ;  IPv6  |GW-B| IPv4   : ;  IPv4 |GW-C| IPv6   : `---'
            | Network+----+   +    | |    +  +----+Network |
      ,---. :Transition  :  IPv6   : :  IPv6  ,---.
     /     +----+A   /    \   B   /   \   C   /   \   D+----+     \
    /      |GW-A|   /      \     /     \     /     \   |GW-D|      \
   ; IPv4+6+----+--'        `---'       `---'       `--+----+IPv4+6 :
   | Network |                                            | Network |
   :         ;                                            :         ;
    \       /                                              \       /
     \     /                                                \     /
      `---'                                                  `---'

Network A and D are IPv6-only, with GW-A and GW-B taking care of the v4-in-v6 tunneling, automatically.

There are certainly cases in which a consistent transition strategy is being followed and is working. I think I said something in the document about granting that the use of a single consistent strategy that works will probably work :^).

What I am concerned about is the proliferation of inconsistent strategies, and the set of cases I can come up with in which they do not work. That is the issue I am trying to raise.

One more comment. I've discovered a lot of confusion in several documents regarding 6over4 and 6in4, which is being followed by confusing documents from vendors. I think is very important to make a general recommendation, may be not just to this WG, but in general to all the IETF documents which mention tunneling, to clearly make a distinction between both mechanisms, probably avoiding using "over" when actually is referring 6in4 encapsulation. Not sure if this should be raised at IESG level or whatever. What do you think ? 

What you expect clue? :^)

Yes, it would be good if people would say clueful things in a clueful way. There is probably room for an internet draft on the subject.