Re: [Idr] Re: Last Call: 'Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)' to Proposed Standard

Francois,

[clipped...]

> I wonder if the current text of rfc2858bis offers sufficient  
> flexibility to allow this. Quoting:
> "
>   Address Family Identifier:
>       This field in combination with the Subsequent Address Family
>       Identifier field identifies the Network Layer protocol associated
>       with the Network Address of Next Hop and the semantics of
>       the Network Layer Reachability Information that follows.
> "
> 
> The above text suggests to me that a given AFI/SAFI pair dictates a  
> single protocol for the next hop, while we are talking here about  
> potentially allowing different next hop protocols which are  
> disambiguated via other means (such as next hop length).

We are talking about the existing IETF standards track documents
(l2vpn, rt-constrain) that for a given (AFI, SAFI) combination allow 
the next hop to be either IPv4 or IPv6, and use the next hop length 
to disambiguate between the two.

> Am I mis-interpreting rfc2858bis text?
> Is it conceivable/wise to tweak this text into something slightly  
> more flexible along the lines of:
> "
>   Address Family Identifier:
>       This field in combination with the Subsequent Address Family
>       Identifier field identifies the _set of possible_ Network Layer  
>       protocol associated
>       with the Network Address of Next Hop and the semantics of
>       the Network Layer Reachability Information that follows.
> "

I personally have no problems with your proposal, except that
the same tweaking should also be applied to the text on SAFI.

Yakov.

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr