Micahel,
On 2007-07-04 16:52, michael.dillon@xxxxxx wrote:
That MPLS with 6PE is a superior migration scenario.
Or perhaps, that defining migration scenarios without the full
involvement of network operations people is an exercise in futility.
If the lesson we have learned is that the only practical way
to handle and route IP (whether v4, v6, or otherwise)
requires the use of an underlying virtual circuit layer, then
much of what we are doing in the IETF involves an
architectural delusion about the fundamental datagram and
packet model of the Internet.
All that the IETF can do is to put the technology on the table. It is up
to network operators, public and private (and very private) to try it
out, test the limits, point out bugs to be fixed, and ultimately accept
or reject it. Over the past 8 or 9 years, this is just what many
operators have been doing with MPLS and the verdict is that MPLS works
very well indeed. Unfortunately, we have been a bit shortsighted in not
realizing that we cannot live with only MPLS and IPv4 because we will
run out of new IPv4 addresses by 2010.
But, given that MPLS works and works very well, it seems to me that a
viable migration scenario is NOT to throw away MPLS and attempt to make
pure IPv6 work right away, but to start with 6PE at the edge where most
growth occurs (in terms of connections) and where we can run a viable
business selling IPv6 services to financially support migration
activities.
I don't understand the tone of complaint in the above. The IETF *has*
put 6PE on the table: RFC 4798 is a Proposed Standard. That's where
the IETF's role ends - this is one of the mechanisms for IPv6
coexistence, among which the market can choose.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf