[mpls] Request for clarification on RFC 7552 (Updates to LDP for IPv6)
Ramakrishna Rao Desetti <ramakrishnadtv@gmail.com> Fri, 22 March 2019 10:10 UTC
Return-Path: <ramakrishnadtv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E391277CE for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 3TnhwHU8Hcze for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22e.google.com (mail-oi1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3CF1126C01 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id t206so1302226oib.3 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qF0fYIEOaChZjkpPr2rj2qEEdYxYHrexe1hsSNp2GG0=; b=YJYyWio/ItwQcYfE9T+iZEvzHQBF9pFQ+O70IfdB83Lmh2PxFr8OSOfoAR+iipIGWh e+QauH+gkzXtKMvb1v4sK5g0chG375OEP2VralTlaFaJFwONiTpG/J1oKioWSjJttMXp iHgaWzsCEPaE8nkj+btOnp928pwKe8wfbno81qn9nyRfx5lzPmiVIGNubCMmOTUy4Ql4 TF7Txv88KwddbOevo/hRen5T1pKLInjRTR1/cG43lJrxLqJxpXq4o6HmWdUU49OyK6P9 S2jvo7vNHJIxlHKxoyrsl+vrS7Cu5qfnC04zNIiF0KUC9+U+pZTX3ZBuRKHRDg2cfqGi lNuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=qF0fYIEOaChZjkpPr2rj2qEEdYxYHrexe1hsSNp2GG0=; b=Htj6I/t5FYJEjgfW7peSPdsvXnPTbfEzV4BEcp3caEmKEITgdFv3ufeHmSb7ndsGsD dZQufGdeqpTFAbpaGqPbHz45jvNyTVnJ1INQfJh66zVO5gMNx+UbNjt2WU/Z+SIBDBct Yw6OjBbOyq2dsB7eBFIRlW1suXAGzmTICedS7+YQ6bmRPeMBN/IfX3QL3UFeWwsYqs5+ eXgVDl2glkc+zCx/bBEky2tZtwxNQAtXTSm4k+LLjl0tIANgoCcfaNO2hhrn2oALwbmg f+Xqo8GQiBQtUxA8awAftkWCP2Y2pTleLsROoGu4knRhHaRFWZdrgxF8gGePgFHgijlY NjEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUlm8vJ6tjr1UhByymUiW8QdbA5FnQSt+WnQ8ZT3TcTYHn0Crrw MmK37yZJMOOOBnCM2KJ6+hThW9V3yId8ta5uvYYskfsL
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzGid6ZzE29cBFvZljV690JlXwqTIeRuA3gTOGBVqie2x3KH38AGOfUk5QHb2mh3tNzptkX+ZGYioGmcikwXJM=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:ecd5:: with SMTP id k204mr1195400oih.53.1553249441795; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Ramakrishna Rao Desetti <ramakrishnadtv@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 15:40:29 +0530
Message-ID: <CAEh1p15KVFMBC9O2cJTUt-hE94gp2mro7k1A61P7+Qp8MO9vyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/BbeWTw31JXWNIm_0LPopVAQCS8I>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 03:23:50 -0700
Subject: [mpls] Request for clarification on RFC 7552 (Updates to LDP for IPv6)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:10:45 -0000
Hi, I request a clarification on a specific point with regard to RFC 7552. Section 8 says: "Lastly, for better scale and optimization, an LSR may advertise only the link-local IPv6 addresses in the Address message, assuming that the peer uses only the link-local IPv6 addresses as static and/or dynamic IP routing next hops." Link-local IPv6 addresses are specific to an interface/link. If we learn link-local IPv6 addresses via LDP session, how to assign to which interface this address belongs to? Note that an LDP session may be backed up by multiple adjacencies on parallel links between peers. RFC 7552 already provided a mechanism to learn link local addresses of a peer via hello messages. It correctly associates those addresses with an interface. Given that it is not clear what is the motivation for the above mentioned additional mechanism. Thanks and regards, Ramakrishna DTV.
- [mpls] Request for clarification on RFC 7552 (Upd… Ramakrishna Rao Desetti