Re: [OSPF] OSPF over IPv4: use case example

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ran, 
We will add this use case to the draft.
Thanks,
Acee 

On 3/3/14 2:41 AM, "RJ Atkinson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>During the OSPF meeting (taking place now), Abhay recently
>asked why IPv6 link-local addressing is not a sufficient
>solution for OSPFv3 deployments (with AF extension)
>in IPv4-only networks.
>
>As we discussed during the meeting, there are some
>deployed link types that do not yet support IPv6 packets
>*at all*.  However, one imagines that over time, such
>links will have equipment upgrades to have full dual-stack
>(IPv4 + IPv6) support.  Using OSPFv3/IPv4 now with the
>AF extension -- and later migrating to OSPFv3 -- can
>reduce operations costs significantly in at least some
>deployments that I'm familiar with.
>
>For example, some deployed IP/VSAT terminals either
>(A) have Ethernet interfaces that only support ARP
>and IPv4 [e.g., using EtherType to filter in hardware]
>OR 
>(B) have serial interfaces that again only support
>IPv4/PPP packets. 
>
>
>ASIDE with more context:
>  For those who don't use SATCOM much, The term VSAT is
>  precisely defined as "Very Small Aperture Terminal".
>  "Very Small Aperture" typically means that the SATCOM
>  dish on the ground is roughly 1m in diameter, rather
>  than the rather larger SATCOM dishes used in some other
>  deployments.  VSATs are quite commonly used around the
>  whole globe, in both developed and less developed regions.
>  
>  Within North America they commonly are used to connect
>  retail sites (e.g. banks, petrol stations, consumer
>  electronics stores) back to the central site for that
>  business.
>
>  Separately, it would not be odd for a VSAT deployment
>  to have an uplink speed that is ~10% of the downlink speed.
>
>Yours,
>
>Ran Atkinson
>
>_______________________________________________
>OSPF mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf