IETF Logo Mail Archive

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> Sun, 21 December 2014 16:02 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 6A4FA1A1B53; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 08:02:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.189
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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 RDBZjTrHb1oM; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 08:02:23 -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 496BB1A1B3D; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 08:02:22 -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 1Y2ixR-0001Za-Uj; Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:02:13 +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: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:02:13 +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> <201412191424.45419.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947C48D5@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947C48D5@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart4135576.2gdEm0gdD0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201412211802.13360.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ybYEeaJaHq04gtgEI8oNK5wGe18
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:03:04 -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: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 16:02:24 -0000

On Friday, December 19, 2014 04:14:17 PM Aissaoui, Mustapha 
(Mustapha) wrote:

> Indeed the reason I raised the issue in the summer was to
> make sure we do not disrupt existing LDPv4 deployments
> and that we do not need to upgrade a LDPv4 node which
> does not comply to this LDPv6 spec. So, both proposed
> methods put the onus on the LDPv6 compliant node to
> automatically detect a router which is not compliant to
> LDPv6 such that it will not send to that node LDP IPv6
> FECs and IPv6 addresses.
> 
> From that perspective, the draft now addressed the issue.
> My latest message was raising concerns about the
> specific method added to the draft and by which the
> LDPv6 compliant LSR goes about addressing the issue.
> 
> I hope this clarifies the situation.

Thanks, Mustapha.

Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email