Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

[Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[e-mail]>]

I support adoption of this draft.

I have a couple of comments:


In section 6, “Changes resulting from a single IPv6 transport peer carrying IPv4 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI below:”

It may be worth noting that this model may have some change to feature that use Pop-n-Forward MPLS-label forwarding.

There may be some platform specific nuances.  Pop-n-Forward is used by features like EPE and L3VPN (per-nexthop label). EPE is an IPv4/v6-Unicast feature, so it may be in-scope even if we consider L3VPN currently out of scope.

Today, v4 routes and v6 routes get a different EPE-label/VPN-label, because of different v4/v6 EBGP peering.

With single IPv6-transport, v4 and v6 routes may allocate the same MPLS-label, as it is the same v6-nexthop. So whether a platform supports such MPLS-in-IP[v4/v6] forwarding for both v4 and v6 traffic when using a single nexthop is a question..

I wonder if the test-cases could be broken down into more granular pieces:

               V4 route with V6 nexthop (single-hop EBGP).
               V4 route with V6 nexthop (multi-hop EBGP).
               V4 route with V6 nexthop (multi-hop IBGP, tunneled)
               MPLS route with V6 nexthop (single-hop away)
               MPLS route with V6 nexthop (multi-hop away)

     Where the MPLS payload can be either v4 or v6.

Different platforms of the same vendor may have different capabilities. So draft may need to record as part of test-results, which specific platforms were tested.

Thanks
Kaliraj


From: BESS <[e-mail]> on behalf of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 2:37 AM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03
[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on April 27th 2021.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RHh1RdZRCsfZX-7cqzDM-y25JSr4cNV_xgzlk2PNsQtpUO2Zm72Z_T66Yr6hkkZv$>




Juniper Business Use Only