[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[6bone] separating IPv6 experimental from production traffic
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 22:52, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:29:15 -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
> > > Tell me how you propose to do this?
> > I think we first have to decide what to do: cleanup or separation.
> This shouldn't be too hard, actually. The main (only) complaint
> I've seen is bad routing over the experimental network, to be
> more precise, bad routing of _production_ packets over the 6bone.
> Here is my naive proposal:
> 1) everybody can still have ipv6-over-ipv4 tunnels like today
> 2) peers notify each other whether their network is production
> or experimental
> 3) experimental (3ffe::/16) pTLAs announce only 3ffe:: prefixes
> to their production (2001::/16) peers
> 4) experimental pTLAs announce all prefixes to their 3ffe::/16
> 5) production networks announce all prefixes to everybody
6) Don't provide by default full transit to peers, provide full
transit only if peer request it.
It will be very difficult to apply a policy on 6bone without a big
> This means that packets from one production network to another
> production network will only get routed over production networks
> and NOT over potentially unstable experimental networks.
> It also means that the production and experimental parts of the
> ipv6 space still have full connectivity to each other, ie the
> reachability of either 3ffe::/16 or 2001::/16 space hasn't
> gotten any worse.
> The only change is that traffic between production networks is
> travelling through production networks only and doesn't depend
> on possible failures in the experimental network.
> This also gives an incentive for ISPs to migrate from experimental
> to production prefixes, since that will potentially give them better
> ipv6 connectivity.
> Any flaw in my reasoning ?
I think that it's the best way.