[mpls] LDP IPv6

Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 26 July 2010 21:38 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 EB44A3A6A03 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 BFWevcrG3MCn for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72833A69A8 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwe5 with SMTP id 5so387454qwe.31 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KKjosZBiTkFYG2Hoa/1X0FOSti4mXsyLub/NiNJNhes=; b=TANiBou6GszcD6jG+zBHXrSD1TUNtzJE1r+BnpuN5q+Sdp0YeIIYamw7t1ZKhpMwtv X4D6x5OPEHcOCXcfrcdH/JOWQJmVpSk2Hf+DD9Ey9oVBdRbEjJJyhgp68TDfSdC27HJn goQXUSJWWpKexICwh20gx2udCjj+AQZBjzICI=
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=JD4CD0B7fiBFyZXheszKPSyXUirGcxO87bzPn9fd5XuToa9WJ1iabCNx/X7pnA9z7l Ii0ch3zf1gwOqz5Vqss+pwKEhnXXUkE64lS7UA2LSA8bOoH6tA2JYBNnYag6PFYTF1j1 RAxVl2XTYvVZO7ZbPdfEBBG/eBNJjkLLmVT+k=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.74.82 with SMTP id t18mr6669239qaj.165.1280180352677; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.19.17 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <v2s77ead0ec1004160659r93f30297k8e6f262bf9465a13@mail.gmail.com>
References: <h2g77ead0ec1004061223k7cc69585ncf8761efb0df2d33@mail.gmail.com> <4395962A7C18D84191B205AD7089698305CA00CA@S4DE9JSAAIB.ost.t-com.de> <r2h77ead0ec1004120755za2c9aadcw9184a1d56cd10c5b@mail.gmail.com> <q2s77ead0ec1004120940r875bc282y7edd293bd846c57@mail.gmail.com> <1E2FA684-E5E0-45FA-9885-0BA7C288AC08@eng.gxn.net> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004150758320.6768@uplift.swm.pp.se> <x2k77ead0ec1004150817v5f2da373lce60f3827a5e00d7@mail.gmail.com> <o2r3c502ff41004160103qf32c87dbn9c9cfd67f057631a@mail.gmail.com> <v2s77ead0ec1004160659r93f30297k8e6f262bf9465a13@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:39:12 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinAGcPj2DUH8iUs0QxZTxoU9ikPdbwRq_Z1Pz7x@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Rob Shakir <rjs@eng.gxn.net>, mpls@ietf.org, faz@netfm.co.uk
Subject: [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, 26 Jul 2010 21:38:55 -0000

Hi Chairs,

We would like to request you to have a WG call to gauge support and
adopt the document LDP IPv6 as a working Group item.

The document is located at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manral-mpls-ldp-ipv6-03

The document in the past has got some review on the list.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Egor,
>
> 1. As Mikael brought out the question of what else is missing I
> brought up the MIB and RSVP-TE issues. I will bring the details out in
> another mail with the correct subject line.
> 2. I guess now that we have more knowledge of the draft we can
> actually try to push it further.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Egor Zimin <lesnix@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi, Vishwas,
>>
>> 1. About RSVP-TE and IPv6 Router Alert option.
>> I do not quite understand your opinion.
>> Do you propose to remove Router Alert option for IPv6 ? Why ? Because of
>> lack of RSVP-TE IPv6 implementations alone ? Because of only RSVP TE uses
>> this option ? Also, what security issues do you mean ?
>> And... what does that have to LDPv6 draft discussion?
>>
>> 2. About draft-manral-mpls-ldp-ipv6-03:
>> I think, the changes and clarifications proposed in the draft are very
>> obvious and not so significant. In fact, the draft only clarifies peer
>> discovery and transport session establishment procedures for IPv6. I don't
>> understand why this draft has not yet become RFC.
>>
>> 2010/4/15 Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Hi Mikael/ Rob/ Farhan/ Egor,
>>>
>>> > Considering IPv4 runout I definitely see greenfield rollout in 1-2
>>> > years wanting to do this IPv6 only, and considering code usually
>>> > takes time to be finished the standards should definitely be done
>>> > by now.
>>> >
>>> > What else is missing?
>>> Let me begin by saying that most drafts/ RFC's have some IPv6
>>> component to them. This however is appended as an add-on in some
>>> cases. As most of these have not been looked at in detail there are
>>> some holes in the RFC for IPv6.
>>>
>>> I found similar holes a couple of years back and wrote this and the
>>> MPLS-TC IPv6 MIB draft. I also noticed that for RSVP-TE for IPv6 we do
>>> not have support for Router Alert in a lot of platforms. It also has
>>> all the security issues aside from that.
>>>
>>> As RSVP-TE seems to be carrying Router Alert as a legacy thing and as
>>> RSVP-TE IPv6 is not implemented on the field I think it would be good
>>> to do away, remove the use of Router Alert in RSVP for IPv6.
>>>
>>> What do folks on the list think?
>>>
>>> BTW, I had mails from a couple of more operators in private and have
>>> forwarded them to the chairs.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vishwas
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Rob Shakir wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I'd just like to speak up in support of this draft also. As an operator
>>> >> that is progressing an IPv6 rollout, we are finding that in a number of
>>> >> places, the only need to utilise 6PE is in order to address the lack of
>>> >> support for IPv6 in LDP.
>>> >
>>> > +1 from me as well, I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been more
>>> > work
>>> > in establishing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6 in the control
>>> > plane.
>>> > I'd imagine that by now it would be possible to implement
>>> > standards-based
>>> > IPv6 only control plane with equal functionality as is today possible
>>> > with
>>> > IPv4.
>>> >
>>> >> Whilst I think it's unlikely that many operators are currently putting
>>> >> this down as a mandatory requirement, it's definitely something that I
>>> >> believe is required.
>>> >
>>> > Considering IPv4 runout I definitely see greenfield rollout in 1-2 years
>>> > wanting to do this IPv6 only, and considering code usually takes time to
>>> > be
>>> > finished the standards should definitely be done by now.
>>> >
>>> > What else is missing?
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Egor Zimin
>>
>