Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory

On 3/31/15 6:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 01/04/2015 13:32, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 31, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 5. Therefore, migrate IPv4 support to run over IPv6.
>>
>> Again, if you want the carrier’s logic, ask the carrier. But to me, that doesn’t follow.
>>
>> Not all core carriers,  but a significant number of them, don’t think of themselves as carrying IPv4 or IPv6 per se. They think of themselves as MPLS houses, using jumboframes so that the addition of that header to whatever their payload happens to be (aka IPv4 or IPv6) doesn’t have an MTU problem. Whatever comes in, they throw it into the right tunnel (aka LSP) to get it to the right egress, MPLS gets it there, and it goes out the other door.
>>
>> You’re arguing about what kind of tunnel they should use. They’re quite happy with the one they have, and it’s neither IPv4 nor IPv6.
> 
> Makes sense. But in that case, ships-in-the-night is the final state
> for such providers, as far as IPv4 goes; I have no problem with that.

they do ships in the night for ipv4.

the p-router portion of the network is protocol agnostic with repect to
encapsulated data, modula practical problems like figuring out how to
make it hash across trunks.

>     Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

Re: [v6ops] IPv4 trajectory

Attachment: signature.asc