Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Wed, 21 April 2010 04:52 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.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 1E4253A6C2C for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 WEf69w3MIzho for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA053A6C2A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEANcgzktAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACcEXGkappHglgVCIIaBIM0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,247,1270425600"; d="scan'208";a="103637504"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2010 04:51:59 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com [72.163.62.139]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3L4pxPP029728; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 04:51:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:51:58 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:51:56 -0500
Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0195368A@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <q2s77ead0ec1004120940r875bc282y7edd293bd846c57@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mpls] LDP IPv6
Thread-Index: AcraX6sIbvxrUAshQIeCgpssVjNa5gGrMZWQ
References: <h2g77ead0ec1004061223k7cc69585ncf8761efb0df2d33@mail.gmail.com><4395962A7C18D84191B205AD7089698305CA00CA@S4DE9JSAAIB.ost.t-com.de><r2h77ead0ec1004120755za2c9aadcw9184a1d56cd10c5b@mail.gmail.com> <q2s77ead0ec1004120940r875bc282y7edd293bd846c57@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>, N.Leymann@telekom.de
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2010 04:51:58.0871 (UTC) FILETIME=[5FEE1270:01CAE10E]
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
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: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 04:52:10 -0000

Hi Nic,

While the de facto practice is to assign the IPv4 address to the LSR-ID, strictly speaking (per RFC5036), it just needs to be a globally unique value (and doesn't need to be an IPv4 address) to identify the LSR.

Note that the LDP session is formed using the IP address encoded in the optional 'Transport Address TLV', not using what's encoded in the LSR-Id field. Pls see section 6.1 for more details on this -
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manral-mpls-ldp-ipv6-03#section-6.1

Hence, its usage should be sufficient for LDP IPv6. 

Cheers,
Rajiv

PS: It might be a good idea to add the above clarification in section 4 to avoid any confusion.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Vishwas Manral
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 12:41 PM
> To: N.Leymann@telekom.de
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6
> 
> Hi Nic,
> 
> I noticed that RFC 5329 has the Router IPv6 Address TLV. Does this
> serve your purpose or not?
> 
> BTW, thanks a lot for supporting this effort. Like I said I know a lot
> of operators (maily Europe and Asia) want the specs for this to be
> finalized and I am just hoping they can speak up in the mailing list
> too.
> 
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
> 
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Vishwas Manral
> <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Nic,
> >
> > We now see the requirement from a few carriers like Trentino Network
> > and a few others for IPv6 in the core, which they want to deploy now.
> > They have actually made these requirements on the field. I agree its
> > probably not the same with the bigger carriers yet.
> >
> > For the TE extensions for IPv6 in Routing protocols we still assume
> > the Router ID is 32 bits, so that remains the same with LDP.
> >
> > Though I think LSR-ID 32 bit should not make a difference in the LDP
> > context, if however we need a routable IPv6 address loopback address
> > was required, we could advertize that as a seperate TLV which could
> > map on a one-to-one basis to an IPv6 address.
> >
> > Let me look further into this and get back to you.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vishwas
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:43 AM,  <N.Leymann@telekom.de> wrote:
> >> 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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