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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

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
>
>