• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6"

Collapse

  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    Interesting. Presumably IPv6 RFC1149 carriers would be able to use tunnels and bridges to seamlessly integrate with their IPv4 counterparts?
    This is addressed in the new RFC as below.

    Routing and Tunneling Considerations

    Routing carriers through the territory of similar carriers, without
    peering agreements, will sometimes cause abrupt route changes,
    looping packets, and out-of-order delivery. Similarly, routing
    carriers through the territory of predatory carriers may potentially
    cause severe packet loss. It is strongly recommended that these
    factors be considered in the routing algorithm used to create carrier
    routing tables. Implementers should consider policy-based routing to
    ensure reliable packet delivery by routing around areas where
    territorial and predatory carriers are prevalent.

    There is evidence that some carriers have a propensity to eat other
    carriers and then carry the eaten payloads. Perhaps this provides a
    new way to tunnel an IPv4 packet in an IPv6 payload, or vice versa.
    However, the decapsulation mechanism is unclear at the time of this
    writing.

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Interesting. Presumably IPv6 RFC1149 carriers would be able to use tunnels and bridges to seamlessly integrate with their IPv4 counterparts?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sysman
    replied
    Nice one Dave.

    Bit too geeky for many I suspect.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    started a topic Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6

    Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6

    With the general adoption of IPv6 on the horizon the IETF have released an updated version of rfc1149 to address the requirements for IPv6.

    RFC 6214 - Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6

    The original version of rfc 1149 can be found here for reference.

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149
    Last edited by DaveB; 1 April 2011, 12:27.

Working...
X