North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: NAT v6->v4 and v4->v6 (was Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 )
> 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. randy
|