[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: 6Bone Mail
- From: [email protected] (Dimitry Haskin)
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 12:21:51 EDT
> From: Francis Dupont <[email protected]>
> => there are three solutions for the dynamic routing of the 6 bone:
> - RIPv6 but RIPv6 doesn't scale (remember DVMRP) and is not specified
> for the usage over tunnels.
How come? Why should RIPv6 work differently over tunnels?
As I see it, tunnel is just an instance of 'normal' point-to-point interface.
The fact that IPv6 packets are encapsulated into IPv4 frames at
link layer should not matter at network layer. Do you tweak
your network protocols for each meadia it may run over? I don't.
Here at Bay we have a generic RIPv6 implementation which runs over tunnels
as specified -- the same way it runs over other types of links.
> Obviously RIPv6 is a cheap protocol
> for the routing inside an IPv6 cloud (OSPFv6 has the same problem
> and is not cheap or available).
> - IDRPv6 but it is not available on all the platforms, the draft
> is not finished, etc... : it is not yet ready. I believe it is
> the good long term solution then we should test it ASAP but
> it is not possible to deploy it before many months.
> - the last solution is to consider the Internet as a NBMA
> and to use NHRP. If you look at one of the maps of the 6 bone
> you can understand a tool is hardly needed and both the short-cut
> facility and a server tree (a level smaller and easier to manage)
> are good things.
NHRP is not a routing protocol. Are you proposing to confine 6bone
to a single LIS so no routing would be necessary?
> I don't believe we can get all this stuff running in a few days
> then we have to do a choice (the same one :-) ASAP...
> [email protected]
> PS: perhaps we should create a 6bone IETF WG or to resume the TACIT WG
> (one of the T of TACIT are for "tests" :-) ?