Subject: RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:02:29 +0100

Hi Pekka, some comments below (marked <<iLS>>):

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 18 December, 2002 22:50
To: Wiljakka Juha (NMP/Tampere)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: FW: 3gpp scenario 2

[BGP] could theoretically be used, but its main area of applicability is
to enable automatic tunneling over IPv4-enabled core using IPv4/6 edge
routers (the typical case being an ISP's MPLS core network).  If this was
applied to the general Internet, it would basically mean that
participating islands would have to be have BGP sessions between them
using some tunneling techinique like 6to4, IPv4 eBGP multihop, etc.

So it seems to me neither of these is applicable in the context 2).

---

<<iLS>> [BGP] defines 2 different deployment options: the first one assumes MP-BGP implementation over IPv4 (identification of MP-BGP edge routers by their IPv4 addresses, using trivial 6in4 tunneling), while the second one assumes MP-BGP implementation over IPv6, thus needing to rely on some existing tunneling technique (as you mentioned before). Why can't we just consider the first approach, avoiding the need for any additional tunneling mechanisms?

Br,

_iLS

_____________________________________________

Ivan Laloux Sbida
Research Engineer
IMN / RST / NSR
Málaga System Competence Team 
Nokia Networks 
Mail:[email-masked] 
Tel:  +34 95 202 85 19 (ext. 41)
Fax: +34 95 202 00 44
_____________________________________________

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:23:35 +0200 (EET)

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> <<iLS>> [BGP] defines 2 different deployment options: the first one
> assumes MP-BGP implementation over IPv4 (identification of MP-BGP edge
> routers by their IPv4 addresses, using trivial 6in4 tunneling), while
> the second one assumes MP-BGP implementation over IPv6, thus needing to
> rely on some existing tunneling technique (as you mentioned before). Why
> can't we just consider the first approach, avoiding the need for any
> additional tunneling mechanisms?

For automatic tunneling inside the 3GPP operator, yes.

For Internet, no. It'd require that you would have IPv4 BGP peerings to
IPv6 islands in the internet -- which is obviously a non-starter
(scalability, requirement for multihop IPv4 BGP sessions with folks you
don't know about, etc.).

-- 
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