[mpls] Fwd: LDP IPv6

Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 16 April 2010 16:39 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 CACC23A6963 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.865
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.865 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.734, 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 NzcDezxApVVA for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f184.google.com (mail-yx0-f184.google.com [209.85.210.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F73D3A6956 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxe14 with SMTP id 14so1500901yxe.5 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JIiwTo3gN7x1tB2g5sis7C1htqtme8hugSFwmexJj0c=; b=Ipdd+HUY8kWahQfspi6ZovGXRhoUbH12JZf7KOnRN5OvmdLqqx1xx4OvvuWvO0SC4J pypSew5G3Jvsc8QHKCi29F/4VVZ2T8UGi/+iflTQt9T5gIqpWs76lVtO4QRUat2AFOzq ziDBTXYrUD6DP0EGx1K5/GBuVLgVIKQxZyGYs=
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 :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=cS91wnslyZJQnD7hwB+HYfUFjFq6J4zMD2dQZFl3Mji6fAuIOOEzENMuRMhIXvhiaM qgP2ZxRyzChMHNdYQ8r21mG/WhgxD/cwOFq6YXUYsnOR7UuvfkoohEdk+kPwS754NfG7 2U46tUglI/fW05uLwj0lHyQ0VAZDVMcyqfi1Y=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.46.14 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:39:32 -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: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:39:32 -0700
Received: by 10.150.194.12 with SMTP id r12mr1939344ybf.272.1271435972651; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <n2h77ead0ec1004160939t421f82d2o50a57691c5dfacc2@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [mpls] Fwd: 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:39:43 -0000

Hi Egor,

We were using the wrong alias it is mpls@ietf.org and not mpls@ietf.com.

Thanks,
Vishwas

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6
To: Egor Zimin <lesnix@gmail.com>
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, Rob Shakir
<rjs@eng.gxn.net>, mpls@ietf.com, faz@netfm.co.uk


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
>