However, for what it matters here, 6rd is native after exiting from the
ISP, same as 6to4 is native after exiting from the 6to4 relay.
As we may not be able to know how "much" of the "native" IPv6 traffic is
6rd in the last mile, I think we should consider all 6rd traffic as native
for those measurements, otherwise, we will be biasing the data. Even it
may be the case of an ISP using 6rd for some part of its network, and
native for the other.
We may need to state "IPv6 native as measured, may be encapsulated in the
last mile".
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Michel Py <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Responder a: <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fecha: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 19:31:13 -0700
Para: Ole Troan <otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Tim Chown <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Asunto: What is Native IPv6
>Ole,
>
>> Ole Troan wrote:
>> I presume you are arguing that MPLS (6PE) is not native either?
>
>That's a tough one.
>
>What would make me say it is native is: MPLS is a L2/switching animal,
>not a L3/routing one. In theory you can bind any L3 protocol such as
>IPv4, IPv6, IPX, Appletalk, etc to it. So the MPLS interface is very
>similar in some aspects to a real physical interface such as Ethernet or
>HSSI. It reminds me of a frame-relay sub-interface in a past life.
>
>What would make me say it is not native is: you can't remove IPv4 out of
>the equation. Frame relay does not even know about which L3 protocols it
>transports, while MPLS is kinda going the reverse way in the stack: it
>uses L3 packets/datagrams to encapsulate and transport "L2 frames".
>
>
>Here's my take:
>- You can have native IPv6 over Ethernet or HDLC or Sonet or any other
>L2 technology.
>
>- Saying you have native IPv6 over fiber or copper is incorrect; you
>have native IPv6 over GigE over {singlemode|multimode} (*) fiber or you
>have IPv6 over Ethernet over GigE over (*) copper (or other examples)
>(*) insert the appropriate 802.x standard
>
>- I like the idea of being native requiring the IPv6 to be bound to a L2
>interface. The gray area with 6PE is that the interface is logical, not
>physical.
>
>- Native IPv6 over a 6to4 or a 6RD or any kind of L3-L3 tunnel is an
>oxymoron.
>
>
>
>In other words: native IPv6 means:
>a) IPv6 has to be bound to a L2 interface.
>b) That interface can NOT be a tunnel interface using another L3
>protocol such as IPv4.
>
>Up for grabs:
>
>- c1) Is it acceptable to have a structural requirement to use IPv4
>(which would mean 6PE is native) or c2) is it a requirement that the
>entire infrastructure (in the case of 6RD, the ISP's infrastructure)
>supports IPv6 (which would mean that 6PE is not native).
>
>Food for thought:
>
>- If c2) is chosen, I would consider rephrasing a) so it becomes "IPv6
>has to be bound to a PHYSICAL L2 interface". Rationale: besides 6PE, are
>there any other gray area candidates?
>
>- If one is in the business of writing an draft about "what is native
>IPv6", and if one of the draft's goals is to reach -cough- consensus
>-cough-, one may consider "forgetting" the 6PE classification
>altogether. The one part that is not open for grabs with me is
>classifying 6RD as native.
>
>
>Michel.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf