Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-14.txt> (Updates to LDP for IPv6) to Proposed Standard

Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Fri, 19 December 2014 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E5FF1A6F7F; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:24:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0EQ-p0qYZW4D; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from the-host.seacom.mu (ge-1.ln-01-jnb.za.seacomnet.com [105.28.96.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C12C1A6F2E; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 04:24:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=the-host.localnet) by the-host.seacom.mu with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>) id 1Y1wbu-0008S5-R4; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:24:46 +0200
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Organization: SEACOM
To: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-14.txt> (Updates to LDP for IPv6) to Proposed Standard
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:24:45 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37.6-24-desktop; KDE/4.6.0; i686; ; )
References: <20141204193700.25973.18733.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <201412181827.34972.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947C4616@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947C4616@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2618500.qoVPgfzSpL"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201412191424.45419.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1YCGHPK_XvVlrJJ-80ebbPxEDSw
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:57:38 -0800
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:24:57 -0000

On Friday, December 19, 2014 01:25:15 AM Aissaoui, Mustapha 
(Mustapha) wrote:

> What we were debating is if we should use the LDP
> capability TLV mechanism which LDP uses to advertise any
> new capability not supported by previous implementations
> versus overloading another TLV which was not meant for
> capability discovery.

As an operator, having to upgrade a non-compliant device 
that is not yet ready to run LDPv6 so that a neighboring 
LDPv6-capable device planning to run LDPv6 can still form 
LDPv4 adjacencies is quite heavy-handed.

Upgrading a device for anything LDPv6 should, ideally, be in 
the interest of getting LDPv6 deployed, and not to prevent 
LDPv4 adjacency tear-down due to capability incompatibility.

On the other hand, it might be worthwhile looking into 
adding a knob for an LDPv6-compliant device to tell it to 
have backwards compatibility with non-compliant devices on 
the wire. Since one would, in all likelihood, be upgrading a 
non-compliant device to make it compliant, the heavy-hand 
makes sense here since an operator needs to get the code in 
anyway.

Mark.