IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap?

"Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 04 February 2015 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD311A0011 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:15:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 2RdwTtrW01I9 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B3B51A000A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 15:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.63]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 66D349BA34384 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 23:15:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.36]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t14NFRVO020798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 18:15:27 -0500
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.190]) by US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 18:15:27 -0500
From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap?
Thread-Index: AdAZVBPagBYA92emSYaWc/+rU9V7tAne7eEQ
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 23:15:26 +0000
Message-ID: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947E9729@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947C1FAE@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D947C1FAE@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/-HEZe5mDUnsenntqPbDTQJrc56Y>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap?
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 23:15:34 -0000

Dear all,
I appreciate if the authors provided some input on this question.

Regards,
Mustapha.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aissaoui, Mustapha
> (Mustapha)
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:17 PM
> To: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap?
> 
> Dear all,
> I recently was made aware of RFC 5549 which seems to cover a couple of the
> gaps in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5549
> 
> RFC 5549 extends MP-BGP with the ability for an IPv4 NLRI (AFI=1, SAFI=1),
> labeled IPv4 NLRI (AFI=1, SAFI=4), and VPN-IPv4 NLRI (AFI=1, SAFI=128) to use
> an IPv6 next-hop. This would I believe cover scenario 2 in sections 3.3.2, 3.3.2.1,
> and 3.3.2.1 for the above types of routes.
> 
> I missed this during the MPLS-RT review and I appreciate if the authors could
> confirm my observation.
> 
> I apologize if this was already discussed.
> 
> Regards,
> Mustapha.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email