[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
G6, new topology & routing policy
- Subject: G6, new topology & routing policy
- From: [email protected] (Alain Durand)
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 19:44:07 +0100
I have change the topology of my IPv6 testbed and or routing policy.
I hope this might help the discussion on the restructuration of the 6-bone.
We are now using two routers as tunnel entry points
One is our regular sun (6bone-gw.ipv6.imag.fr/18.104.22.168)
with netbsd/inria code.
The other one is a digital router (6bone-core.ipv6.imag.fr/22.214.171.124).
The goal is to somehow split core routing from leaf access. In the migration
process, 6bone-gw will be use for regular, non-RIPng tunnels and 6bone-core
will be used for RIPng ones. 6bone-core will advertize routes for sites I have
direct non-RIPng tunnels to via 6bone-gw. I hope this 2 routers scheme will
help me to select the routes I want to advertize with RIPng.
Just to fuel the discussion, here are some details about G6 tunnels.
Non rip-ng tunnels readvertized through RIPng via 6bone-core:
WIDE/jp, UNI-C/dk, UL/pt, UNH/us, JOGUNET/de, SICS/se, COSY/at , ERA/se,
NRL/us, SUMITOM/jp and CSELT/it
BAY/us, DIGITAL-ETC/fr, DIGITAL-CA/us & DIGITAL-BE/be
Some non RIPng tunnels will be replaced shortly by core RIPng ones.
If we reorganize the 6-bone in a geographical approach, I realize
I should not annouce some sites and maybe I should dig some new tunnels
with other european sites.
I would like to get some comments: is a geographical approach a good thing?
will it (or should it) map the underlaying IPv4 networks?
I think this is an important point in this discussion.