1
0
mirror of https://github.com/becarpenter/book6.git synced 2024-05-07 02:54:53 +00:00

18 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

## Tunnels
2022-12-28 14:21:07 +13:00
At its simplest, two IPv6 hosts or networks can be joined together via IPv4 with a tunnel, i.e. an arrangement whereby a device at each end acts as a tunnel end-point. Typically such a tunnel connects two IPv6 routers, using a very simple IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation described in [RFC4213](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213), with IP Protocol number 41 to tell IPv4 that the payload is IPv6. Conversely, IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels are also possible, with IPv6 Next Header value 4 to tell IPv6 that the payload is IPv4. This would allow an operator to interconnect two IPv4 islands across an IPv6 backbone. (Naturally, IPv6-in-IPv6 tunnels are also possible, if needed.)
2022-10-09 15:13:55 +13:00
2022-12-28 14:21:07 +13:00
However, such simple encapsulation is rarely needed today, with direct IPv6 transit being widely available from major ISPs. Tunnels are used in other co-existence scenarios, some of which we will now describe.
2022-10-09 15:13:55 +13:00
2022-12-28 14:21:07 +13:00
Early solutions assumed that an ISP's infrastructure was primarily IPv4; [RFC6264](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6264) is no longer up to date, but it provided background on how IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels would be used in such cases. Today, the picture is reversed, and the emphasis is on ISP infrastructure which is primarily IPv6.
DS-Lite (Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion) \[[RFC6333](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333)] uses an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel between the the ISP's carrier-grade NAT (CGN) and the customer's Customer Edge (CE) router. The customer is given a private IPv4 prefix \[[RFC1918](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918)] and the CGN translates IPv4 traffic to and from a public IPv4 address. Thus, the infrastructure between the CGN and the CE router can be pure IPv6.
IPv6 can be tunneled using GRE (Generic Routing Encapsulation, [RFC7676](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7676)).
IPv6 can be tunneled over MPLS \[[RFC4029](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4029)]; for example, see "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using
IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)" \[[RFC4798](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798)]. A common solution is to connect IPv6 networks over IPv4 MPLS via IPv6 Provider Edge routers (6PE) \[[RFC4798](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798)]. [RFC7439](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7439) provided a gap analysis for IPv6-only MPLS networks. [RFC7552](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7552) closed many of those gaps. Interested readers can study a 125 page [NANOG tutorial](https://pc.nanog.org/static/published/meetings/NANOG76/1993/20190612_Agahian_Demystifying_Ipv6_Over_v1.pdf).
<!-- Link lines generated automatically; do not delete -->
2022-12-28 11:42:51 +13:00
### [<ins>Previous</ins>](Dual%20stack%20scenarios.md) [<ins>Next</ins>](Translation.md) [<ins>Chapter Contents</ins>](3.%20Coexistence%20with%20Legacy%20IPv4.md)