IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

David Ward <dward@cisco.com> Fri, 25 August 2006 22:43 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GGkOO-0007m1-Cr; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:43:12 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GGkOM-0007lF-Gp; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:43:10 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GGkOL-0007uh-3G; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:43:10 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2006 15:43:07 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.08,170,1154934000"; d="scan'208"; a="338253519:sNHT33487040"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k7PMh6cw012193; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:43:06 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k7PMh51E018648; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:43:05 -0700
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([171.68.225.134]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:43:05 -0700
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:43:04 -0500
Subject: Re: [Idr] Re: Last Call: 'Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)' to Proposed Standard
From: David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <C114E728.809F7%dward@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Re: Last Call: 'Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)' to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AcbIl9N2Ef3E1zSLEduUsgAKlcR7kg==
In-Reply-To: <200608252017.k7PKHvg37865@merlot.juniper.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2006 22:43:05.0451 (UTC) FILETIME=[D453B3B0:01C6C897]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1887; t=1156545786; x=1157409786; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dward@cisco.com; z=From:David=20Ward=20<dward@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20[Idr]=20Re=3A=20Last=20Call=3A=20'Connecting=20IPv6=20Islands=20 over=20IPv4=20MPLS=0A=20using=20IPv6=20Provider=20Edge=20Routers=20(6PE)'=2 0to=20Proposed=20Standard=20; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DLSzpRHTxX+blzpOhNnNOaTcbAmw=3D; b=SVMCVaHsImZbE/fU+BHgOS8p6iYY13tB0v94unUn3Uqvhmmfw/v2npZHhwnn+9/IxSi0/wP1 bSNgltWMbBMpGxVC5Jk6gpUR2T/sE0IZ4pe2FhCndY0z5fKje86dfOjG;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3.cisco.com; header.From=dward@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Cc: idr@ietf.org, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, "Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, softwires@ietf.org, "Mark Townsley (townsley)" <townsley@cisco.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

Yakov -

Please note that we have to solve the scenarios that include tunnel
encapsulation aka non-MPLS deployments. Therefore, the AF/SAF needs some
reinterpretation.


Thanks

-DWard


On 8/25/06 3:17 PM, "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net> wrote:

> Dave,
> 
>> Yakov, Bill -
>> 
>> Since we allow the route to an X-prefix to have a Y-address as its next hop,
>> we still need an SOFTWIRE|IDR document to specify  how to do that.  For the
>> cases where (a) X is  VPN-IPv4 and Y  is IPv4,  (b) X is  VPN-IPv6 and Y  is
>> IPv4, (c)  X is VPN-IPv6 and  Y is IPv6, we  have legacy solutions in
>> deployment which could easily remain valid.
> 
> We also have "legacy solutions" for the cases where (d) X is IPv6
> and Y is IPv4, (e) X is L2VPN and Y is IPv4, (f) X is L2VPN and Y
> is IPv6, (g) X is RT and Y is IPv4, (h) X is RT and Y is IPv6, ...
>   
>> In addition, we need to handle the  "X is VPN-IPv4 and Y is IPv6" case,
> 
> See e-mail from Ron Bonica on this.
> 
>> as  well as the case where X is IPv4 and Y is IPv6 and the case
>> where X is IPv6 and Y is IPv4.
> 
> X is IPv6 and Y is IPv4 is done (6PE).
> 
> The only item from your list above for which the IETF does not have
> a solution is the case where X is IPv4 and Y is IPv6. With this in
> mind, why would not the softwires WG take the existing 6PE as the
> base and modify it to cover the case where X is IPv4 and Y is IPv6 ?
> 
>> The necessary document being proposed
>> needs at least the following components:
>> 
>> - A reinterpretation of IPv4 AFI/SAFI  and IPv6 AFI/SAFI which allows the NH
>>   to  be of  a  different  AF than  the  NLRI.
> 
> Since the interpretation of MP_REACH/MP_UNREACH depends on a combination
> of AFI/SAFI, and since IPv4 or IPv6 only define AFI, which of the
> currently defined SAFIs need the reinterpretation ?
> 
> Yakov.


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

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status