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

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