Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6
Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 12 April 2010 14:55 UTC
Return-Path: <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F913A6853 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.877, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gBMd9+54bcRB for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f200.google.com (mail-yw0-f200.google.com [209.85.211.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6993A67D9 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywh38 with SMTP id 38so2866846ywh.29 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QP1rPKXmO7JhqRtRXmVEQDl2+h+iRbVHCtsp2x0Rclw=; b=jF+covw6ZV4RArQD61FMaw+RCTbOp6P3ahfbNgVkxI5ENH9z9xZkqob/rlL4w4Jkhr /HdoQHpXQcWZvSXFHjPNLSbQlGdUrYS9lLDr6H0hOV2qqeAbnakqThnS4aZ5r5KYtgPy +OqHQUut5yaXsHqANQTIJlvTcrOLwpqoF4Cn0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Ffc/Gv62pkXhadHrvWG1GLNUyWz+kUBDcDgcdLZSS9xqvEBNwlq0j0xmSm9Htu7gu5 w2qmmMkmyg6ZQrrQrIO0P6ytmaZoa3nhkBtRiFsqPaWJn3wtwFNtnLR0T76xRQOEC7hy rKVhXpEV1ZVubq3ou0CmeVkAXH9rqitzEOnKw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.46.14 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4395962A7C18D84191B205AD7089698305CA00CA@S4DE9JSAAIB.ost.t-com.de>
References: <h2g77ead0ec1004061223k7cc69585ncf8761efb0df2d33@mail.gmail.com> <4395962A7C18D84191B205AD7089698305CA00CA@S4DE9JSAAIB.ost.t-com.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:55:26 -0700
Received: by 10.151.92.9 with SMTP id u9mr2605747ybl.336.1271084126320; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <r2h77ead0ec1004120755za2c9aadcw9184a1d56cd10c5b@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: N.Leymann@telekom.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:55:35 -0000
Hi Nic, We now see the requirement from a few carriers like Trentino Network and a few others for IPv6 in the core, which they want to deploy now. They have actually made these requirements on the field. I agree its probably not the same with the bigger carriers yet. For the TE extensions for IPv6 in Routing protocols we still assume the Router ID is 32 bits, so that remains the same with LDP. Though I think LSR-ID 32 bit should not make a difference in the LDP context, if however we need a routable IPv6 address loopback address was required, we could advertize that as a seperate TLV which could map on a one-to-one basis to an IPv6 address. Let me look further into this and get back to you. Thanks, Vishwas On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:43 AM, <N.Leymann@telekom.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I think that IPv6 for LDP is getting more and more important. Even with private IPv4 addresses - depending on network size and addressing scheme - for mid and long term it is definitely a good idea to take IPv6 into account! > > I've also a short comment regarding the draft. It states: > > "This document preserves the usage of 32-bit LSR Id on an IPv6 only > LSR and allows the usage of a common LDP identifier i.e. same LSR-Id > and same Label space id for IPv4 and IPv6 on a dual-stack LSR. This > rightly enables the per-platform label space to be shared between > IPv4 and IPv6." > > At the moment providers tend to use an IPv4 address as LSR ID and I wonder about the operational impact if this is going to be moved towards a more abstract ID. > > Regards > > Nic > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Vishwas Manral > Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. April 2010 21:23 > An: mpls@ietf.org > Betreff: [mpls] LDP IPv6 > > Hi folks, > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manral-mpls-ldp-ipv6-03 > > We have a new version of the LDP IPv6 draft. The draft has been around > since 2008, however we are now seeing operators asking for it (and can > be seen in some discussions in the RIPE mailing lists). > > We would want to hear comments on the same from the list. > > Thanks, > Vishwas > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >
- [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Mark Tinka
- [mpls] Fwd: LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 N.Leymann
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Rob Shakir
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Mikael Abrahamsson
- [mpls] Fwd: LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Bin Mo (bmo)
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Bin Mo (bmo)
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Bin Mo (bmo)
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Rajiv Asati (rajiva)