[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Internet Engineering Task Force                                  G. Chen
Internet-Draft                                                   T. Yang
Intended status: Informational                                     L. Li
Expires: January 5, 2012                                         H. Deng
                                                            China Mobile
                                                            July 4, 2011


            IPv6 Practices on China Mobile IP Bearer Network
             draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-bearer-network-trials-00

Abstract

   This memo has introduced IPv6 practices on China Mobile IP bearer
   network, in which IP backbone network and broadband access routers
   have been covered.  In the practice, IPv6 protocol conformance and
   data packages forwarding capabiliteis have been tested in multi-
   vendors environments.  Several IPv6 transition schemes have been
   deployed to validate interoperabilities.  Based on concrete testing
   data, IPv6-enable deployment experiencies have been learned to share
   with community.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents



Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.


































Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  IPv6 trial on IP backbone network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  IP Backbone Topology for Trials  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  IPv6-only Routing Protocol Testing . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.3.  Dual-stack Routing Protocol Testing  . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.4.  6PE/6vPE Protocol Testing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.5.  Tunnel Protocol Interoperabilities . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.6.  IPv6 ACL and Policy Routing Configuration  . . . . . . . .  8
     2.7.  Summary for IPv6 Trial on IP Backbone Network  . . . . . .  8
   3.  IPv6 Testing on BRAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.1.  Test Topology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  Test Cases- Basic IPv6 protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.3.  Test Cases- DUT in Network Test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.4.  Test Cases- Performance in IPv6 environment  . . . . . . . 13
     3.5.  Summary for BRAS Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14






























Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


1.  Introduction

   With fast development of global Internet, the demands for IP address
   are rapidly increasing at present.  This year, IANA announced that
   the global free pool of IPv4 depleted on 3 February.  IPv6 is only
   way to satisfy demands of Internet development.  Operators have to
   accelerate the process of deploying IPv6 networks in order to address
   IP address strains.

   With significant demands of service development, China Mobile has
   officially kicked off first IPv6 pre-commercial trials on IP bearer
   network on June 2011 after several standalone tests of IP equipment
   in labs.  The trials have taken place on major IP backbone network
   and broadband access equipments.  In order to verify IPv6 feasibility
   and applicability,IPv6 protocol conformance and data packages
   forwarding capabiliteis have been tested in multi-vendors
   environments.  Several IPv6 transition schemes, i.e. dual-stack,
   6PE[RFC4789], 6vPE[RFC4659], have been deployed to validate
   interoperabilities.  Based on the IPv6 trials, concrete testing data
   have been generated and analysed to provide informative assessment to
   facilitate IPv6 deployment in next steps.

   This memo has described detailed testing topology, cases and process
   both on IP backbone network and BRAS.  The testing results have been
   summarized and analyzed to provide explicit conclusions for further
   deployment.


2.  IPv6 trial on IP backbone network

   This section will describe IPv6 trial on IP backbone network in
   details.  It includes testing topoloy, testing cases.  Based on
   collected testing data, we have summarized testing results.

2.1.  IP Backbone Topology for Trials

   Figure 1 depicts the overall topology for IP backbone trials, which
   is constituted by hierarchical IPv6 enable routers.  The same level
   would deploy double-routers due to redundancy considerations.  The
   top-level is national IP backbone network to connect provincial level
   networks.  The middle level is provincial IP backbone to connect
   metropolitan area networks.  The bottom level stands for core IP
   routers to connect local area networks.  The trials have been taken
   place on these three levels.  In order to simulate user-generated
   data, two router testers have been positioned to access metropolitan
   core routers.  They have resposibilities to propagate routing
   information into the network under testing.




Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


                                /              /
                               /              /
                        O------|--------------|---------O
                        |  +-------+      +-------+     |
                        |  |Router |      |Router |     |    top-level
                        |  +-------+      +-------+     |
                        O------|--------------|---------O
                       ________/\___    ______/\__________
             _________/    _________\__/________          \____
            /             /                     \              \
     O-----|--------------|-------O       O------|--------------|------O
     |  +-------+      +-------+  |       |  +-------+      +-------+  |
     |  |Router |----- |Router |  |       |  |Router |------|Router |  |
     |  +-------+      +-------+  |       |  +-------+      +-------+  |
     O------|--------------|------O       O------|--------------|------O
             \___    _____/      middle-level        \___    _____/
                 \  /                                    \  /
                  \/                                      \/
              +-------+                               +-------+
              |Router |       bottom-level            |Router |
              +-------+                               +-------+
                  |                                       |
              +-------+                               +-------+
              |Tester |                               |Tester |
              +-------+                               +-------+



                   Figure 1: IP Backbone Topology for Trials

   The test cases mainly are composed by several parts:

   o  IPv6-only routing protocol interoperabilities: the test case would
      shutdown IPv4 stack on tested routers.  Only IPv6 stack is running
      to process IPv6 EGP(i.e.  BGP4+[RFC2545]) and IGP routing
      protocol(i.e.  OSPFv3[RFC2740] and ISIS[RFC5308]).  It will
      validate IPv6 routing protocol conformance in multi-vendor
      environments.

   o  Dual-stack routing protocol interoperabilities: the tested router
      would run both IPv4 and IPv6 IGP and EGP protocol simutanously.
      It will verify if remote peers could totally learn spreaded IPv4/
      IPv6 routing information.

   o  6PE/6vPE protocol interoperabilities: the test case would require
      PE routers to be upgraded to support 6PE/6vPE functionalities and
      remain MPLS core network staying IPv4-enable.  It will testify MP-
      BGP routing learning and package forwarding capabilities.



Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


   o  Tunnel protocol interoperabilities: the test case would configure
      PE routers as 6over4 tunnel end-point.  After configured 6over4
      tunnel is established, the encapsulated package would be forwarded
      throught MPLS network.

   o  IPv6 ACL and policy routing capabilities: the target of this test
      case aiming at IPv6 traffic restrainability.  A pair PE would be
      configured with a paticular policy to constrain data forwarding
      for specific IPv6 traffic.  The verification will help to enhance
      network security.

   The following sub-sections would state testing results and related
   observations.

2.2.  IPv6-only Routing Protocol Testing

   The testing is going to validate IPv6 routing protocol
   interconnection between multi-vendor routers.  OSPFv3 and ISIS have
   been deployed as Interior Gateway Protocol.  Based on IGP, BGP4+ has
   been configured as EGP to commnunicate routing informaiton.

   In the case of OSPFv3 deployment, routers on the top-level and
   middle-level have been schemed as area 0, which takes responsibility
   of backbone area.  And, routers on the bottom-level has been
   configured as area 100 and area 200 accessing to backbone area.  The
   testers inject IPv6 routing information to see whether propagated
   IPv6 routing information can be learned by remote routers located on
   the other side of bottom-level.  The teting is finalized that routers
   on bottom-level still remain Exstar/Exchange states.  OSPFv3 can't
   creates adjacencies between neighboring routers for the purpose of
   exchanging routing information.  After troubleshooting, IPv6 MTU
   between neighboring routers is inconsistent, which causes it failed
   to establish adjacencies.  It is fixed by adjusting IPv6 MTU as
   identical.  It's recommedded that IPv6 MTU should be configured as
   unified benchmark.

   In the case of ISIS deployment, routers on the top-level and middle-
   level have been schemed as level 2, which takes responsibility of
   backbone area.  And, routers on the bottom-level has been configured
   as level 1.  The testers inject IPv6 routing information to see
   whether propagated IPv6 routing information can be learned by routers
   located on level 1.  The teting has found out that Multi Topology
   (MT) Routing[RFC5120] in IS-IS would easily cause disorders in ISIS
   routing area.  It's recommedded that MT Routing in IS-IS should be
   enable or disable simultaneously.

   In the case of BGP4+ deployment, one of routers on top-level has been
   selected as reflectors.  The router on others level will establish



Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


   neighboring relationship with the router based on running ISIS route
   protocol.  The testing has shown BGP4+ is running well on IPv6-enable
   network.

2.3.  Dual-stack Routing Protocol Testing

   Dual-stack routing testing runs IPv4 and IPv6 protocols simutanously.
   The routing area planning is similiar with IPv6-only routing protocol
   testing. for IPv4 routing protocol, OSPF and ISIS have been taken as
   IGP and BGP has been taken as EGP.  Testing has shown that routing
   path have been computed by IPv4 and IPv6 routing algorithm
   independently.  The IPv4/IPv6 routing information learning and data
   forwarding are conformed with testing expectation.

2.4.  6PE/6vPE Protocol Testing

   6PE and 6vPE could shift network to provide IPv6 access depending on
   existing Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) [RFC3032]core network.
   Operators could deploy IPv6 network without modifying IPv4 enable
   MPLS cloud.  In the testing, the routers on bottom-level take
   responsibility of PE and routers tester simulate CE to inject IPv6
   routing information and package flows.  The routers on the top-level
   and middle-level would still remain IPv4 enable situation.  MPLS
   protocol has been configured on these routers.  During the testing,
   tester would serve for CE to inject routing information.  In the case
   of 6PE, the tester will propagate normal IPv6 IGP routing information
   to the PE.  In the case of 6vPE, the tester would generate IPv6 VPN
   routing information to communicate with remote peer through MP-BGP.
   The testing shown remote peers could learn total IPv6 routing
   information through MPLS enable cloud.  The basic funcationalities of
   6PE/6vPE are going well in the testing network.  The caution has been
   raised by forwarding big data packages.  The intermedia routers would
   like to drop big packages surpassing network MTU since they can't
   fragment big package in the middle of the forwording path.  The data
   fragmentation functionalities are taken by initiated router.
   Therefore, it's recommedded that the package size do not exceed
   network MTU by configuring maximum MTU on initiated router or
   enabling Path MTU Discovery on initiated router.

2.5.  Tunnel Protocol Interoperabilities

   Tunnel protocol requires dedicated board to support.  The testing is
   focusing on configured 6over4 tunnel.  In order to coordinate with
   existing deployed MPLS cloud.  The tunnel end-point has been located
   on PE routers.  In this case, IPv6 package is expected encapsulated
   in IPv4 package going through MPLS network, in which additional MPLS
   header with lable would route 6over4 packages into remote peer.
   Therefore, the transmitted IPv6 data packages are not only



Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


   encapulated in native IPv4 package, but headed into MPLS tunnel.
   Double tunneling is requested in this situation.  According to the
   testing results, router are failed to support such encapsulation
   manner.  The tunnel board can't forward data packages carrying both
   tunnel id and MPLS lable.  However, MPLS encapsulation supporting is
   essential for IP bearer network since MPLS is widely deployed.

2.6.  IPv6 ACL and Policy Routing Configuration

   IPv6 ACL(Access Control List) will help to reduce potential risks of
   harmful invasion by preventing IPv6 traffic from a specific source
   address or network to a specified destination network.  In the test
   scenario, the routers have been configured as IPv6-enable.  Routers
   on bottle-level have configured with ACL deny policies which have
   applied for both outbound and inbound IPv6 traffics.  Testers would
   inject IPv6 traffic to the routers to validate if the ACL takes
   effect.  The results shown that only outbound ACL deny policies is
   valid.  And inbound policies are failed to constrain IPv6 traffic due
   to the lacking of supports from the router board.

   Another testing is taken place at policy routing redistribution
   through BGP4+.  An restricted routing policy would be added into
   BGP4+ UPDATE message to propagate into the remote peer.  After the
   testing, the remote peer could suceessfully learn the redistributed
   routing policies and take effect to limite paticular IPv6 traffic .

2.7.  Summary for IPv6 Trial on IP Backbone Network

   In general, the tests on several aspects indicate that IPv6-enable
   backbone network has already qualified for carrying IPv6 data
   packages in IPv6-only or dual-stack conditions.  The IPv6 routing
   protocol has mature supporting in current routers.  It also shows
   high-interoperabilities in multi-vendor environments.  According to
   testing results, two points needed to be highlighted for next step in
   IPv6 deployment:

   o  MTU configuration needs to be carefully configured and checked up.
      The inappropriate MTU configuration will cause failures of IGP
      neighboring establishement and packages dropping.  The unified
      maxmum MTU configuration is recommended.

   o  Multi Topology (MT) Routing in IS-IS should be configured in
      unified manner to avoid routing disorders in ISIS area.

   o  Compared to other tunneling technologies, 6PE and 6vPE are
      recommended to be deployed on IP bearer network, in which MPLS is
      widely enable.




Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


3.  IPv6 Testing on BRAS

   BRAS is the key equipment in MAN, it distributes IP addressess to the
   subscribers through DHCP protocols, authorize the subscribers to log
   on, and calculate their online time for billing.  It is the "central
   control node" in MAN.

   In the past several years, BRAS helped ISPs to control and record the
   subscribers' bahaviors in IPv4 networks.  Along with IPv6 approaching
   day by day, several BRAS manufacturers announce their equipments
   could support IPv6 functions.  In order to checkout that, we carried
   on testing five types of BRAS produced by four manufacturers.

   Test results show that BRAS's IPv6 functions and capabilities are not
   optimistic.  The following subsections describe the specific results
   of the tests.

3.1.  Test Topology

   We tested BRAS in four network scenarios in our labotory.  The first
   scenario checks out the basic IPv6 protocols in stand-alone
   environment, the following two mostly test the DUTs' communicating
   ability in networks, and the last simplest configuration verifies the
   BRAS performance in IPv6 environment.

           +------+
     | IPv4 +--+
     | host |  |  +-----+
     +------+  +--+ CPE +--+                         -----
     +------+  |  +-----+  |                       /       \
     | IPv4/+--+           |                      |  IPv4   |
     | IPv6 |              |                      + Network +
     | host |              |                     / \       / \
     +------+              |    +-------+   +---+    -----    +-----+
         Meter Simulation------>| Test  +---+DUT|             |Test |
                           |    | Meter |   |   |             |Meter|
                           |    |(v4/v6)|   |   |             |     |
     +-------+    +-----+  |    +-------+   +---+    -----    +-----+
     |Client +----+DSLAM+--+                     \ /       \ /
     | node  |    |     |  |                      +  IPv6   +
     +-------+    +-----+  |                      | Network |
                           |                       \       /
     +-------+    +-----+  |                         -----
     |Client +----+ AP  +--+
     | node  |    |     |
     +-------+    +-----+

                 Figure 2: Test Topology 1 (stand-lone test)



Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011






             +-------+
             | Test  |
             | Meter |
             |(v4/v6)+---+
             +-------+   |
   +------+              |
   | IPv4 +--+           |                         +--------+
   | host |  |           |                ----     | Riadus |
   +------+  |   +---+   +---------+    /      \   | Server |
             +---+CPE+---+  BRAS   +---+        +--+--------+
   +------+  |   +---+   | (IPv4)  |   |        |  +--------+
   | IPv4/+--+           +---|--|--+   |        |  |        |
   | IPv6 |              |   |  |      |        +--+ DHCP   |
   | host |              |   |  |      |        |  | Server |
   +------+              |   |  |      |        |  +--------+
                         |   |  |      |        |
    +------+   +-----+   |   |  |      |        +--+--------+
    +Client+---+DSLAM+---+   |  |      |        |  | Portal |
    +------+   +-----+       |  |      |        |  |        |
                             |  |      |  IPv4/ |  +--------+    ----
               L2TP Tunnel-->|  |      |  IPv6  |              /      \
                             |  |      |Network |             | IPv4   |
             +-------+       |  |      |        |             +Internet|
             | Test  |       |  |      |        |             |        |
             | Meter |       |  |      |        |            / \      /
             |(v4/v6)+---+   |  |      |        |  +--------+    ----
             +-------+   |   |  |      |        |  |  Test  |
   +------+              |   |  |      |6PE/6VPE|  |  Meter |
   | IPv4 +--+           |   |  |      |    |   |  +---+----+    ----
   | host |  |           |   |  |      |    |   |      |     \ /      \
   +------+  |   +---+   +---|--|--+   |    V   |  +---+--+   + IPv6   |
             +---+CPE+---+   DUT   ----------------- M320 |   |Internet|
   +------+  |   +---+   |(IPv4/v6)-----------------      |    \      /
   | IPv4/+--+           +---------+---+        |  +------+      ----
   | IPv6 |              |             +        +
   | host |              |             |        |
   +------+              |              \      /
                         |                ----
    +------+   +-----+   |
    |Client+---+DSLAM+---+
    +------+   +-----+


               Figure 3: Test Topology 2 (DUT in networks)



Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


                                            -----
                                          /       \
                                         +  IPv4   +
                                         | Network |
                                         +         +---+
                                        / \       /    |
    +-------+   +-----------+    +-----+    -----      +----+---------+
    | Test  |   |Aggregation|    |     |                    |  Test   |
    | Meter +---+  Switch   +----+ DUT |                    |  Meter  |
    |(v4/v6)|   |           |    |     |                    | (v4/v6) |
    +-------+   +-----------+    +-----+    -----      +----+---------+
                                        \ /       \    |
                                         +  IPv6   +---+
                                         | Network |
                                         +         +
                                          \       /
                                            -----



                  Figure 4: Test Topology 3 (DUT in networks)




                                  ----------
                                /            \
                               +    IPv4      +
                               |   Network    |
                               +              +-----+
                              / \            /      |
    +-------+       +--------+    ----------        +-----+-----------+
    | Test  |       |        |                            |   Test    |
    | Meter +-------+  DUT   |                            |   Meter   |
    |(v4/v6)|       |        |                            |  (v4/v6)  |
    +-------+       +--------+    ----------        +-----+-----------+
                              \ /            \      |
                               +    IPv6      +-----+
                               |   Network    |
                               +              +
                                \            /
                                  ----------


                   Figure 5: Test Topology 4 (performance Test)






Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


3.2.  Test Cases- Basic IPv6 protocols

   Along with devices transiting from IPv4 to IPv6, BRAS's IP-based
   protocol stack will undergo a major change.  Some new protocols will
   come into being, and some existenced protocols' features will be
   changed, such as NDP, MLD,ICMPv6, DHCPv6, etc.  We tested the BRAS
   equipments' new features particularly.  At the same time, we also did
   some experiments on L2 or L4 protocols, such as TCP, UDP, PPP, to
   verify whether they can work well in IPv6 environment.

   Testing conclusions show that all the equipments made by four
   manufacturers can support the basic IPv6, ICMPv6, TCP, UDP, PPP, and
   IPv6 routing protocols, but just two devices can pass most of the
   access functions test cases.

   The most serious problem is that two DUTs do not support DHCP server
   functions in IPv6, which causes a negative impact when the BRAS
   distributes IPv6 addresses to the subscrtibers or even does DHCP-PD,
   because there are not local IPv6 address pool in the devices.  ISPs
   must purchase IPv6 DHCP servers additionally.

   The second trouble is about multicast.  One DUT does not only support
   MLD protocols but PIM-SM which has noting to do with IPv6 or IPv4.
   Another two cannot duplicate multicast stream for each subscrtiber
   neither in PPPoE nor IPoE. considering this problem, ISPs can hardly
   carry out trible-play, such as IPTV, by deploying these devices.

   At last, only one DUT does not support local PPPoEv6 authentication.

3.3.  Test Cases- DUT in Network Test

   In order to achieve the gradual transition from IPv4 to IPv6, and to
   protect the investment of the deployed devices in the current
   networks, IPv6 BRAS must have the ability to set L2TP tunnel with
   IPv4 BRAS, and should support IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel with IPv6 router.
   We did the experiment in topology 2 and 3 in our lab.

   One of the problems is about L2TP tunnel.  In scenario 2, IPv6 client
   initiates a PPPoE access request to the IPv4 BRAS, which sets up an
   L2TP tunnel with the DUT (IPv6 BRAS) after it get the client's IPv6
   attribute form the Radius server.  But unfortunately, the IPv6 client
   can not get an IPv6 address or prefix.  This situation has taken
   placed on three manufacturers' DUTs because of their IPv6CP function.

   BRAS must record subscribers' online time and traffic information,
   which is a basic function in IPv4.  We test that in topology 2, all
   the DUTs can make a record, but three of them cannot distinguish IPv6
   and IPv4 for a dual-stack client.  That means ISPs could not charge



Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


   separately according to the tradffic is IPv4 or IPv6, which is very
   important for developing IPv6 if ISPs want to charge IPv6 traffic
   cheaper than IPv4 in the early of the IPv4-IPv6 transition years.

3.4.  Test Cases- Performance in IPv6 environment

   We also tested the BRAS capability in IPv6 environment in topology 4.
   The test cases inclued FIB capacity, ACL quantity, QoS queue
   quantity, and line card IPv6 throughput.

   Performance test conclusions demonstrate that the DUTs' capability do
   not drop so much in IPv6 networks than in IPv4.  The main problems
   are listed below.

   One DUT's IPv6 FIB capacity is only 10% of its IPv4 FIB capacity
   because the related resouces, such as Memory, are designed separately
   but not shared.  But we do not consider that is a serious problem,
   because the design will certainly be changed if IPv6 traffic
   increasing over IPv4 traffic in current networks.

   One DUT's line card throughput is much less than the nominal value
   when the packet length shorter than 128B no matter it is IPv4 or
   IPv6.

3.5.  Summary for BRAS Testing

   The specific testing results show that only one DUT's IPv6 functions
   can basicly meet the requirement of current networks experiment or
   commercial trial.  The IPv6 device industy need to be pay more
   attention by all the ISPs and manufacturers.


4.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.


5.  Security Considerations

   TBD


6.  Normative References

   [RFC2545]  Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol
              Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545,
              March 1999.




Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


   [RFC2740]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
              RFC 2740, December 1999.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [RFC4659]  De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
              "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
              IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, September 2006.

   [RFC4789]  Schoenwaelder, J. and T. Jeffree, "Simple Network
              Management Protocol (SNMP) over IEEE 802 Networks",
              RFC 4789, November 2006.

   [RFC5120]  Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
              Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
              Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, February 2008.

   [RFC5308]  Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
              October 2008.


Authors' Addresses

   Gang Chen
   China Mobile
   53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
   Xuanwu District,
   Beijing  100053
   China

   Email: chengang@chinamobile.com


   Tianle Yang
   China Mobile
   53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
   Xuanwu District,
   Beijing  100053
   China

   Email: yangtianle@chinamobile.com








Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         IPv6-bearer-network-trials              July 2011


   Lianyuan Li
   China Mobile
   53A,Xibianmennei Ave.
   Beijing  100053
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-13910750201
   Email: lilianyuan@chinamobile.com


   Hui Deng
   China Mobile
   53A,Xibianmennei Ave.
   Beijing  100053
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-13910750201
   Email: denghui02@gmail.com

































Chen, et al.             Expires January 5, 2012               [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/