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

["Xiejingrong (Jingrong)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

I think it is a valid option to use existing SAFI such as those (SAFI-1/128) described in RFC5549/8950.

But I don’t understand this sentence “It does not even require any new software upgrade to existing routers if they already support RFC5549+RFC9012.”

My understanding of the overall 4map6 solution is in my previous mail [*], and I think the main requirement for the BGP extension in the solution is an “IPv4/IPv6 Prefix” information in an TLV/Sub-TLV/Sub-sub-TLV of some BGP Attribute.

[*] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/fUMnsJpSwoU3Vz-3NrcUCQqggfY/

But I failed to find a TLV or Sub-TLV that can carry an IPv4/IPv6 Prefix after reading RFC9012 quickly.

Can you please clarify on that ?

Regards,
Jingrong

本邮件及其附件可能含有华为公司的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments may contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!

From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 6:55 PM
To: Chongfeng Xie <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; idr <[e-mail]>; xing <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Fw: Re: New Version Notification for draft-xie-idr-mpbgp-extention-4map6-00.txt

Chongfeng,

【Chongfeng】: I agree with you, introducing IPv4 routes into IPv6 domain will increase the size of control plane, but I think this is normal, you have mentioned RFC5549/8950 several times, RFC5549/8950  also adopts new SAFI value

I do not recall ever mentioning RFC8950, but it DOES NOT introduce new SAFI. Please read section 3 of either RFC5549 or RFC8950.

I mentioned RFC5549 with RFC9012 which requires new capability not a new SAFI- that's all. It does not even require any new software upgrade to existing routers if they already support RFC5549+RFC9012.

All that is needed is just a few lines of configuration - that's all.

Regards,
R.



, and specifies the extensions necessary to allow the advertising of IPv4 NLRI with a next-hop IPv6 address, herein 128-bits of next IPv6 address will be used for all IPv4 routes. My proposal is basically the same as RFC5549/8950 in terms of the scale, the difference is that my draft use IPv6 mapping prefix instead of specific next-hop IPv6 address.  In addition, my draft is about IPv6-only deployment for the network. IPv6-only will run after dual-stack as a whole. At that time, IPv6 will be the main stream, and the use of IPv4 will be less, and the overall quantity of IPv4 routes may be reduced hopefully.


Furthermore, the forwarding of IPv4 services in P routers will be based on IPv6 FIB, the size of which is
In all cases forwarding in P routers will be based on IPv6 FIB so I do not understand why you are highlighting it here.
[Chongfeng]:   You mentioned the cost issue before, and IPv6-only in multi-domain networks can reduce the cost of data forwarding, so I highlighted it.  BTW, What does "in all cases" here mean?


Your statement sounded like what I am describing would not be forwarded based on IPv6 FIB so I commented on it.
【Chongfeng】：OK

[Chongfeng]:  In large-scale networks, it is not enough to achieve IPv4/IPv6 packet conversion only through local algorithmic computing. To convert an IPv4 address to an IPv6 address in PE, it needs to obtain the IPv6 address prefix of remote-end to identify the location of the IPv4 address block in the IPv6 network in advance.
In addition, I think the/96 prefix you mentioned is about the choice of prefix length, which can be considered in the future.


I disagree. Irrespective of network scale you can algorithmically and consistently insert a bit string into a packet.

And the algorithm we are talking about it well know so there is no issue what so ever.
【Chongfeng】： Can you tell me which RFC the algorithm is in? MAP-T/MAP-E?  or something else?

I am not talking about some local domain mapping.

Thx,
R.

Thanks!
Chongfeng