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

Hmmm,

There was a thread between the authors and chairs discussing this, but it wasn't
summarised back to the list.

Could someone do that, please.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aissaoui, Mustapha
> (Mustapha)
> Sent: 04 February 2015 23:15
> To: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Missing RFC in draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap?
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls