Re: [Idr] Fw: Re: New Version Notification for draft-xie-idr-mpbgp-extention-4map6-00.txt

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 10:39:45AM +0100, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> If edge nodes do not carry IPv4 routes don't we have number of solutions
> already as well like pseudowires or EPE which could provide a pipe model
> through the transit network not doing any lookup ?

The consideration I'm raising is not the "edge" nodes, it's that carrying
IPv4 routes with tunneling information would require all intervening
networks to also support that family and tunneling.

> Let's note that that not doing IPv4 lookup on the ingress/egress here is
> very deployment limiting too especially if number of sites you are
> interconnecting grows.

I don't believe the procedures here are requsting that we avoid IPv4 lookup.
Rather, it's the lookup is done utilizing the mapping database constructed
using this feature.  However, that's my interpretation of the feature in the
draft.

The procedures for populating the IPv4 FIB, including route selection
considerations for loop detection, are underspecified in my opinion. These
are in need of further discussion by the authors and the working group.

-- Jeff