Re: [bess] Suggestion on v4-only/v6-only drafts

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Robert

RFC 8950 only defines only the IPv4 NLRI over IPv6 next hop encoding IANA
BGP capability code point 5 that updates RFC 5549 next hop encoding for
SAFI 128 and 129 where the 8 byte RD set to 0 was left of the next hop
encoding specification.

RFC 8950 as stated defines only  the next hop encoding and for example does
not define BGP MPLS VPN RFC 4659 AFI/SAFI 2/128 specification nor does it
define BGP LU RFC 8277 specification  AFI /SAFI 2/4….

The next hop encoding is just component of the overall 4PE specification
which did exist till this draft was published.  There are vendors that have
implemented 4PE which may or may not even be called 4PE, and this draft
defines the name “4PE” and what it means form a specification perspective
and thus would ensure the standardization of all implementations to ensure
interoperability.

As operators start migrating their core to IPv6 this does become a big deal
as most operators have multi vendor environments and so this comes to the
surface as a hot topic to ensure interoperability.

This draft also defines critical extensibility to segment routing SR-MPLS
and SRv6 which did not exist when 6PE RFC 4798 was developed.

Many Thanks

Gyan

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 3:56 PM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Gyan,
>
>
>> IDR draft:
>>
>> The 4PE draft connecting IPv4 islands over an IPv6 core  over the global
>> table is similar in semantics to 6PE RFC 4798 which connects IPv6 islands
>> over an IPv4 core over the global table and the draft is extensible to
>> SR-MPLS and SRv6. There currently is not a standard for 4PE so this draft
>> would standardize 4PE for vendor  interoperability.
>>
>
> Not true.
>
> Quote from RFC8950:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> I do not see anything your draft would add to it.
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mishra-idr-v4-islands-v6-core-4pe/
>>
>> BESS drafts - these drafts are completely different from IDR 4PE draft.
>>
>> I have already combined two of the drafts into one for the IPv4-Only PE
>> All SAFI draft
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mishra-bess-ipv4-only-pe-design-all-safi/
>>
>> IPv6 Only PE Design BCP draft below was adopted  last year and the new
>> draft extensible to ALL SAFI Standards Track below I plan to progress
>> separately.  As one is BCP and the other Standards track I don’t think they
>> could be combined and even if they were combined into the super set all
>> SAFI that would have to go through adoption process again anyway so I plan
>> to keep separate.
>>
>> This draft I will queue up for adoption call.
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mishra-bess-ipv6-only-pe-design-all-safi/
>>
>>
>> Many Thanks
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 6:19 AM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gyan,
>>>
>>> Sharing a couple of suggestions here for your 5 drafts (4 in BESS + 1 in
>>> IDR) as we lost time due to the audio issues:
>>>
>>> (1) put the portions to be standardized (very focussed/small hopefully)
>>> in one single draft and post/share with both IDR and BESS since you are
>>> changing NH encoding (from what I heard?)
>>> (2) all other informational/BCP material could be combined in a single
>>> draft (perhaps the existing BESS WG draft)
>>>
>>> IMHO, that would facilitate an appropriate focussed review of the
>>> content/proposals.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ketan
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>
>> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BESS mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*



*M 301 502-1347*