Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6

<N.Leymann@telekom.de> Mon, 12 April 2010 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <N.Leymann@telekom.de>
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 7BAAC3A67E2 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 04:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.39
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 TlTt0IPuzFya for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 04:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail83.telekom.de (tcmail83.telekom.de [62.225.183.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315683A682D for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 04:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from s4de9jsaano.mgb.telekom.de (HELO S4DE9JSAANO.ost.t-com.de) ([10.125.177.105]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2010 13:42:58 +0200
Received: from S4DE9JSAAIB.ost.t-com.de ([10.125.177.167]) by S4DE9JSAANO.ost.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:42:58 +0200
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:43:02 +0200
Message-ID: <4395962A7C18D84191B205AD7089698305CA00CA@S4DE9JSAAIB.ost.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <h2g77ead0ec1004061223k7cc69585ncf8761efb0df2d33@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mpls] LDP IPv6
Thread-Index: AcrVvwtDL4N6oFirRlKbXiuQz9xwswEbzrzw
References: <h2g77ead0ec1004061223k7cc69585ncf8761efb0df2d33@mail.gmail.com>
From: N.Leymann@telekom.de
To: mpls@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Apr 2010 11:42:58.0314 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C62B6A0:01CADA35]
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 11:44:12 -0000

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