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>
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>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6
Precedence: list

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.=20

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
>=20
> Hi Nic,
>=20
> I noticed that RFC 5329 has the Router IPv6 Address TLV. Does this
> serve your purpose or not?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
>=20
> 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, =A0<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:
> >>
> >> =A0"This document preserves the usage of 32-bit LSR Id on an IPv6 =
only
> >> =A0 LSR and allows the usage of a common LDP identifier i.e. same =
LSR-
> Id
> >> =A0 and same Label space id for IPv4 and IPv6 on a dual-stack LSR.
> This
> >> =A0 rightly enables the per-platform label space to be shared =
between
> >> =A0 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.
> >>
> >> =A0Regards
> >>
> >> =A0 =A0Nic
> >>
> >> -----Urspr=FCngliche 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