This conversation originated in Sigtran, but this is really about the
IPv6 routing architecture, so I bring it to IPNGWG. The initial context
was the handling of a site with multiple "6to4" routers.
> From: Vladislav Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>...
> However, I still don't see a need for a special address for
> 6to4 routers. The DSTM mechanism can provide the TEP and
> it might as well provide the 6to4 address of the router (not
> any speciall address).
If there is a need, this need is independent of 6to4. It relates to
"egress control" and v6 multi-homing. Suppose that a site is
multi-homed. Each station gets several IPv6 addresses. For a given TCP
connection, it picks one of them as source addresses. As packets are
sent, the egress router is chosen as a function of the destination
address, independent of the source address. This means that we can see
packets flowing through ISP-A, using a source address allocated by
ISP-B.
The only problem with that is, what happens if ISP-A, in the name of
protection against source-address spoofing, rejects these packets?
-- Christian Huitema
> May be DSTM might be extended to privide multiple TEPs and
> let the implementation choose one (or cycle through them)?
> Just a thought. This way we don't have to reserve a speciall
> address.
>
> -vlad
>
> George Tsirtsis wrote:
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 10:50 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: Vladislav Yasevich; George Tsirtsis; NGTRANS List
> > Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Sites with multiple 6to4 border routers
> >
> > > >> I believe that's what Brian Carpenter, Tony Hain, and Dave
Thaler
> > were
> > > >> saying the meeting. You have to use a globaly IPv4 address to
> > > >> create a 6to4 prefix. I don't beleave you can assign the same
IPv4
> > > >> address to 2 independent devices...
> > > >Uh? There is nothing impossible there. Suppose that we have a
> > > >multi-homed site that connects to the Internet through multiple
> > routers,
> > > >both of which advertise the same IPv4 prefix, say 123.123.1/23.
> > >
> > > i guess you are talking about different thing from Vladislav
> > said:
> > >
> > > > /-------\ /------
> > > > | | +-+ |
> > > > | +-+A+---------------+
> > > > | | +-+ |
> > > > | Site | | Internet
> > > > | | +-+ |
> > > > | +-+B+---------------+
> > > > | | +-+ |
> > > > \-------/ \-----
> >
> > No. When I say that "It is quite natural to reserve a single IPv4
> > address for the 6to4 routing service", I mean that A and B both use
> > 2002:xxxx:xxxx::/48; both A and B use x.x.x.x. They advertise
different
> > addresses in the IPv6 cloud; they advertise the same IPv4 prefix
(say
> > x.x.x/24) to the Internet; the routing of outward bound packets is
> > determined by IPv6 routing inside the site, e.g. RIPng; the routing
of
> > packets from the Internet is determined by Internet routing
protocols
> > (e.g. BGP).
> >
> > GT> Indeed! The requirement for 2 or more 6to4 gates to be able to
use
> the
> > same 6to4 prefix is that they advertise the same ipv4 prefix in the
IPv4
> > Internet. Up to now it has been assumed that they only advertise a
> single
> > IPv4 address but this is clearly not necessary.
> >
> > GT> In this case, mechanisms that require outgoing and incoming
paths to
> be
> > using the same 6to4 gate could make use of Alain's 6to4 designated
> address.
> >
> > George
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
