Subject: RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

From: "Karim El-Malki (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:36:19 +0100

> Sure, but my thought is that dual-stack v4/v6 backbones 
 > already exist, and
 > are definitely on the rise.  It's not like 3GPP networks are 
 > deploying
 > today or tomorrow.

I think the issue was that 3GPP core networks have already been deployed
and are running IPv4.

 > Often setting up the infrastructure required to
 > install something like BGP/IGP tunneling is greater than the pain of 
 > configured tunneling or dual-stack backbone.

When an operator introduces v6 islands over an existing v4 backbone
it doesn't have to modify the existing network. Both configured
tunnelling and EGP/IGP would be the same from this point of view.
In certain cases upgrading the whole backbone at once is worse.

/Karim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:55:00 +0200 (EET)

> I think the issue was that 3GPP core networks have already been deployed

.. but v6 part of it isn't deployed today or tomorrow.  Prudent folks
would be preparing for enabling of IPv6 today -- so that when finally
viable 3GPP solutions are available, their network is already upgraded,
router software tested etc.

> tunnelling and EGP/IGP would be the same from this point of view.

.. at the expense of possibly having to upgrade latest and greatest 
software in the islands to support these mechanisms.

> In certain cases upgrading the whole backbone at once is worse.

Who says the backbone must be upgraded at once?  Usually things like these
are done over a longer period, e.g. 6-12 months.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords