Jim, Let us think of a single RTM having for both V4 and V6. But to what extent this is valid from routing stacks.? Will it be valid to propogate V4 routing info. also to V6 domain.? Obviously the other way is not valid?
Thanks KAT.Murugan -----Original Message----- From: Bound, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2002 9:04 PM To: Brian Haberman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IPng List Subject: RE: Dual stack routers Brian, Agree. The entire issue of scoping will need to be added to the infrastructure for sure. thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 8:22 AM > To: Bound, Jim > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IPng List > Subject: Re: Dual stack routers > > > Jim, > I agree with your assessment. It is essentially the way I have > integrated IPv6 into an IPv4 system. One point to keep in mind though > is how to support site-scoped addresses in this model. The > route table > needs expansion in order to incorporate the zone IDs in the lookup. > > Regards, > Brian > > "Bound, Jim" wrote: > > > > Its really up to the engineering team for that > implementation. I would integrate v4 and v6 and duplicate as > little as possible. At least all data structures so the > algorithm for update/replace/delete was the same function > module and not duplicated once for tcp and once for udp and > yet again for SCTP. Then there is the emerging RDMA the > router might want to use for storage. Treating all addresses > as 16bytes (v4 and v6) works and will perform. Also all the > traffic shaping, classification, et al on hardware would make > the hardware engineers job a lot easier and thats a > performance win too to support both address types. > > > > regards, > > /jim > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Murugan KAT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:15 AM > > > To: 'IPng List' > > > Subject: Dual stack routers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Murugan KAT > > > Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2002 12:07 AM > > > To: 'IPng List' > > > Subject: RE: Requirements for 'O' flag (was Re: IPv6 working group > > > agendafor Minneapolis IETF) > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Regarding Dual Stack Router implementation should a > router maintain 2 > > > routing tables, one for V4 and other for V6. What about the > > > routing stacks? > > > Should there be 2 instances of a routing protocol (BGP, > OSPF etc.,) ? > > > > > > What is the general approach? > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > KAT > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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] > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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] > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > *************************************************************************** This message is proprietary to Future Software Limited (FSL) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. FSL accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus. ***************************************************************************
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
