Re: [Idr] [Softwires] [bess] Regarding the Next Hop Network Address coding for IPv4 VPN over IPv6 Core in RFC5549

Hi all,

Can the WG reach a conclusion on how to treat that erratum related to RFC5549:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5253

Thanks,
Shunwan

-----Original Message-----
From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 6:37 PM
To: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>; bess@ietf.org
Cc: softwires@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Idr] [bess] Regarding the Next Hop Network Address coding for IPv4 VPN over IPv6 Core in RFC5549

since we are discussing that topic,

maybe the WG would like to reach a conclusion on how to treat that erratum:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5738

Thanks
-m

Le 2019-06-27 à 11:15, Xiejingrong a écrit :
> Thanks for the RFC historical lessons.
> 
> --there was historically some assumption that next hop must be of the 
> same AF as prefix.
> 
> --RFC 2858 says that Next Hop field should match AFI. On the other 
> hand, RFC 4760 says that Next Hop Field should match combination of AFI/SAFI.
> 
> --authors of RFC 4364 were trying to make it consistent with 4760.
> 
> --Also, drafts of RFC 4364 and RFC 4760 were being developed 
> practically at the same time period.
> 
> The problem is clear, the nexthop field has been inconsistent between 
> different L3VPN/MVPN scenarios and different implementations in the 
> long history.
> 
> <draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-00> is the latest draft, but it has 
> different nexthop in section 3.1 to 3.4, in the year 2019.
> 
> Back to my suggestion: implementation should interpret nexthop RD+IPv4 
> and nexthop IPv4 the same, and interpret nexthop RD+IPv6 and nexthop
> IPv6 the same.
> 
> I think it may be helpful for <draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-00> to 
> add the above text, and update RFC4364/4659/4760/5549, to eliminate 
> the worries about interoperation. ----is there any worries about 
> interoperation ?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jingrong
> 
> *From:*Alexander Okonnikov [mailto:alexander.okonnikov@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2019 9:38 PM
> *To:* Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
> *Cc:* UTTARO, JAMES <ju1738@att.com>; Xiejingrong 
> <xiejingrong@huawei.com>; softwires@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; 
> ian.farrer@telekom.de; bess@ietf.org; ianfarrer@gmx.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] [bess] [Softwires] Regarding the Next Hop Network 
> Address coding for IPv4 VPN over IPv6 Core in RFC5549
> 
> Hi Robert,
> 
> Sorry, I was not so precise :-) Of course, RD part in Next Hop is not 
> copied from RD of NLRI, but zeroed. I was trying to explain why Next 
> Hop field in RFC 4364 and RFC 4659 has format RD:IP (VPNvX address) 
> rather than just IP.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> 
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires