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

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:46:45PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> >Hence before expending a lot of effort on determining (and 'marketing') 
> >whatever might be the 'best' solution in the pure IPv4 core case I believe 
> >we should get some idea of the relative importance of the pure IPv4 core 
> >case as compared with IPv4 providing a tunnel substrate for connecting to 
> >the IPv6 transit backbone.
> 
> I had a little bit of the same concern.  It seemed as if document was 
> discussing solutions for end-to-end IPv6 connectivity mechanisms 
> between two or more v4 islands (or vice versa for v4 and v6 islands).
> 
> My take was similar to yours: we don't need end-to-end v6 connectivity 
> *mechanisms* (provided by one site to another).  We'll just ask the 
> sites to connect to the v6 internet.  They might do it via their 
> direct upstream or someone else, but which one doesn't matter that 
> much as long as the "v6 backbone" doesn't get fragmented.

Seems we all got different thoughts from the document, which is probably
a good sign :)   It seemed to me that the less clear scenario was the one
where an IPv6 only backbone is deployed and IPv4 transit still required.

-- 
Tim/::1