[99621] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NAT v6->v4 and v4->v6 (was Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Sat Sep 29 21:25:34 2007
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:54:34 +0930
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <46FEF1A3.1060106@psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:45:23 -1000
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> > MPLS as well as the IETF softwires techniques (the MPLS model without
> > using MPLS i.e. tunnel from ingress to egress via automated setup
> > tunnels - gre, l2tp, or native IPv4 or IPv6) can or will shortly be
> > able to be used to tunnel IPv6 over IPv4 or vice versa. softwires in
> > effect treats the non-native core infrastructure as an NBMA layer 2.
> >
> > The advantage of these techniques verses dual stack is that they push
> > the complexity of dual stack to the network ingress and egress
> > devices.
> >
> > Dual stack isn't all that complicated, however when you think about
> > running two forwarded protocols, two routing protocols or an
> > integrated one supporting two forwarded protocols, having two
> > forwarding topologies that may not match in the case of dual routing
> > protocols, and having two sets of troubleshooing methods and tools, I
> > think the simplicity of having a single core network forwarding
> > protocol and tunnelling everyting else over it becomes really
> > attractive.
>
> huh? and your tunnels do not have *worse* congruency problems than dual
> stack? gimme a break.
>
I do not understand what you mean.
The tunnelled traffic takes the same ingress-to-egress path through the
core that it would if the core natively supported the tunnelled payload
protocol.
This is the basic BGP/MPLS model, using IPv4, IPv6, GRE or L2TP as the
encapsulation, instead of MPLS.
Regards,
Mark.
--
"Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
alert."
- Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
