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

Dave,

> Yakov -
> 
> Please note that we have to solve the scenarios that include tunnel
> encapsulation aka non-MPLS deployments. 

By "non-MPLS deployment" do you mean that the tunnels can not be LSPs,
or do you mean that there should be no MPLS at all, even at the edges
(PEs) ?

> Therefore, the AF/SAF needs some reinterpretation.

You still did not answer my question. Namely, which of the AFI/SAFIs 
currently defined by IETF need "some reinterpretation" ?

Yakov. 

> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -DWard
> 
> 
> On 8/25/06 3:17 PM, "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> > Dave,
> > 
> >> Yakov, Bill -
> >> 
> >> Since we allow the route to an X-prefix to have a Y-address as its next ho
p,
> >> we still need an SOFTWIRE|IDR document to specify  how to do that.  For th
e
> >> 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