Re: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Adrian,

I meant to type ³RFC 4990 is GMPLS specific², and not what I wrote.

Please ignore the associated consequences from my typo, I was thinking
³MPLS-TP² when I wrote the sentence in my response :-)

Basically, Section 3.5 says three things:
1. Major Gap! RFC 3811 TC for MPLS (which are use in a bunch of MPLS MIB
Modules) lack support for IPv6 in specific cases (Gap) and one I-D tries
to resolve that gap (incidentally authored by one of our contributors)
2. Other MIB Modules had adequate support for IPv4 and IPv6
3. RFC 4990 takes if further for GMPLS (NOT MPLS-TP!) describing how to
handle IPv6.

Does that clarify?

We still do have a typo in Section 3.5, second paragraph though.

Thanks,

Carlos.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 5:58 PM
To: Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap

>Hello,
>
>Thanks for the work and I am advancing the I-D.
>
>> > I am sceptical about section 3.5. Earlier in the document you have
>> > mentioned the fact that RFC 4990 explains how to use existing MIB
>> > modules with IPv6 addresses, but you don't mention that RFC here.
>> > Conversely, you do mention an individual I-D that does not (yet?)
>> > have working group support to fix a problem that it is not clear is
>> > the problem that needs to be fixed in a way that seems to me to be
>> > wrong.
>> 
>> RFC 4990 is MPLS-TP specific.
>
>Well now, that comes as a surprise to someone who wrote part of the
>document and edited the final version :-)
>
>RFC 4990 is most assuredly not about MPLS-TP. There is no mention of
>MPLS-TP in the document.
>It is quite true that if you were using the GMPLS MIB modules (that build
>on the MPLS-TE MIB modules) to manage an MPLS-TP network what you have
>written in the new revision would be perfectly true.
>But RFC 4990 also explains the use of IPv6 in the MPLS-TE and GMPLS MIB
>modules. Section 8 is pretty specific about that and provides a mechanism
>to handle IPv6 extended tunnel IDs (it's a hack, Jim, but it might just
>work!).
>That makes me somewhat sceptical about the size of the gap you have
>identified.
>(I'm also not convinced that obsoleting an in-use TC will be a sound way
>to make backward-compatible changes if they turn out to be necessary.)
>
>And now, of course, I start to worry about the level of review applied to
>section 3.5 of this document. The consequence is not good: if this
>section carries a bad analysis of the gaps then it is likely to be
>ignored; if one section of this document is open to be ignored, what of
>the other sections?
>
>Cheers,
>Adrian
>