Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6

"Bin Mo (bmo)" <bmo@cisco.com> Tue, 10 August 2010 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bmo@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 AE4283A6872 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, 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 XeWwdUfTMk5r for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED633A6AC6 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAEtVYUytJV2d/2dsb2JhbACgLHGiXptMhToEhCaHbw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,349,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="145936692"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Aug 2010 20:38:36 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7AKcaFU022042; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:38:36 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-102.cisco.com ([72.163.62.144]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:38:36 -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, 10 Aug 2010 15:38:35 -0500
Message-ID: <1ED479097DCF154A89226065E522D5A8026763B9@XMB-RCD-102.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinAGcPj2DUH8iUs0QxZTxoU9ikPdbwRq_Z1Pz7x@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mpls] LDP IPv6
Thread-Index: AcstCwQeiNJ7gTmdRjal6tUwnU8bCQLwMywQ
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> <AANLkTinAGcPj2DUH8iUs0QxZTxoU9ikPdbwRq_Z1Pz7x@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Bin Mo (bmo)" <bmo@cisco.com>
To: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2010 20:38:36.0583 (UTC) FILETIME=[01DB6370:01CB38CC]
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: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:38:03 -0000

Hi Vishwas,

I have couple of questions on draft-manral-mpls-ldp-ipv6-03.

1. In section 3 LSP mapping, is IPv4 hello adjacency on an interface required to forward labeled IPv4 traffic to nexthop, and IPv6 hello adjacency required to forward labeled IPv6 traffic?

2. In section 6.1 transport connection establishment, if both IPv4 and IPv6 transport addresses are available, any preference which transport address should be preferred?

Thanks

/Bin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Vishwas Manral
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 5:39 PM
> To: George Swallow (swallow); Loa Andersson
> Cc: Rob Shakir; mpls@ietf.org; faz@netfm.co.uk
> Subject: [mpls] LDP IPv6
> 
> 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
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls