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 )
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:45:23 -1000 Randy Bush <[email protected]> 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"