Subject: (ngtrans) <draft-many-ngtrans-connect-ipv6-igp-00.txt>

From: Gilles Diribarne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:48:07 +0200

Hi,

We proposed a new draft to the ngtrans session which was not presented 
due to time. We would like to give the position for this draft 
<draft-many-ngtrans-connect-ipv6-igp-00.txt>.
This draft proposes, using the OPAQUE-LSA structure, to transfer IPv6 
prefixes from an IPv6 island to another one. An IPv6 island represents 
here some nodes where OSPFv3 runs inside an AS. These islands are not 
physically connected each other, and the IPv4 "backbone" is used (thanks 
to OSPFv2) to transfer IPv6 prefixes.
The main advantage compared to a "ship-in-the-night" method is that it 
doesn't need any configuration of tunnel to exchange prefixes and a new 
IPv6 island that would be inserted inside the AS would be automatically 
connected, since it uses OSPFv2.
This draft will allow a smooth transition inside an AS, beeing 
configurationless.

Finally, this draft is not tackled to the OPSFv2/OSPFv3 case (in the 
draft, it is the case). We can also imagine to connect ISISv6/OSPFv2, 
OSPFv3/ISISv4 using the same mechanism (a similar mechanism of opaque 
LSA for ISIS exists). So, we also propose to adapt this method to ISIS 
as an extension.

Any comments?

Gilles Diribarne and authors.

-- 
  Gilles Diribarne
  Alcatel Research & Innovation
  [email-masked]
  Tel: +33 (0)1 69 63 46 45	Fax: +33 (0)1 69 63 11 69

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:09:35 +0300 (EEST)

> This draft will allow a smooth transition inside an AS, beeing

The draft only addresses the mechanism for transporting tunnel endpoint
information (other stuff left to be implementation-specific).

Is it specified how the tunnels themselves are built using this knowledge?
And routes added pointing to them as nexthop?  Security considerations?

> LSA for ISIS exists). So, we also propose to adapt this method to ISIS

OSPFv3 is not really deployed at all yet -- won't be for some time yet.
There is about one relevant implementation.

Somehow I'm a bit of sceptic on how adding more complexity like this
really reduces any real transitionary pains.  Is setting up tunnels really
all that difficult -- sure if you want a full mesh between all IPv6
routers in a big corporation, this might be useful, but often it makes
sense to design the network differently.

In short, I'd like to hear whether others think this is really needed or
is it just "because we can". :-)

Of course, all of these transitionary techniques really depend on the fact
on how long we think the transition is going to be (in organization scope)
and when it's going to start...

-- 
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