Hi Ran, We will add this use case to the draft. Thanks, Acee On 3/3/14 2:41 AM, "RJ Atkinson" <[email protected]> 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 >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
