Hi Steve,
> I believe IP-in-IP tunneling has become a basic tool that
> routers need to
> support efficiently anyway, so I'd turn it around and ask if
> it's worth
> the additional (and nontrivial) costs of including all the
> MPLS machinery
> as well. But I won't, because as I said, it's out-of-scope
> for this list.
The way I see it is that it is very similar function in the traffic plane of
the router:
- daisy chain of mpls headers
- daisy chain of ipv6 extension headers
Note I'NOT saying they are doing the same things BUT if you want to do layer
4 classification (for stateful inspection, ingress/egress filtering and qos
etc) for v6 with its extension headers it even worse than a mpls-label
stacked packet operation...
Then as we have seen we can argue for a long time whether is it useful or
not..:-)
In fact mpls is much more light weigth tunneling protocol than ip in ip
tunneling... And it could serve as a very nice transition/tunneling
mechanism of an ipv6 based vpn..
MPLS solves one problem: traffic engineering - which is very nice to have in
the backbone for an ISP and the MECHANISMS that mpls have introduced is very
nice...
But when it's run over an ipv6 environment it can be more efficient and
utilize the flowlabel in the core for LSP's and do TE on them but to be more
efficient running over IPv6 and utilize the flow label instead of a new l2
protocol and get better link utilazation...
-- thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
