Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6
Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 12 April 2010 16:45 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 2D66B3A6AC5 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.543, 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 4mgCm8xSxEtX for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB503A6A1F for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb1 with SMTP id 1so1263679gwb.31 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:40:48 -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:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lHIzmkFrfIZ1ExvnE7GdRjXyK2Mea+U1Bun3Ggi9cD0=; b=PJaQ0grO3psUr+hWB3+0ZhVgOH/0ZhNI8lA54Kbzji5BE6lD8+NmxMxs7EHzNps1HA AitKxS1ESs4xvv8KUeBOwKwUiHY2ePfoz9OO6jRa4pmL7fsT30zFgRjfGIk/H2p856At wBO1tZLc1ArQq2ib/398hvRlfMTQm+kM8M+9Q=
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=DD5Q5yitleQKJohEmlORNORl/EvEd3KZK7h54DwJidGXFaUmALth2YYK8p0wWftLm7 Zr1jf6xF6n+V31f5V1l7//E7ejxXrvF5lpP0m2IcWVKBFHn65OiFjf2xQ0UvUtkJA1Ip 3U/Jfqd3C1yiFVO/brESFONxlv6t8mJ5Oie/A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.46.14 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <r2h77ead0ec1004120755za2c9aadcw9184a1d56cd10c5b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <h2g77ead0ec1004061223k7cc69585ncf8761efb0df2d33@mail.gmail.com> <4395962A7C18D84191B205AD7089698305CA00CA@S4DE9JSAAIB.ost.t-com.de> <r2h77ead0ec1004120755za2c9aadcw9184a1d56cd10c5b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:40:47 -0700
Received: by 10.150.165.20 with SMTP id n20mr4020230ybe.316.1271090447797; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 09:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <q2s77ead0ec1004120940r875bc282y7edd293bd846c57@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: N.Leymann@telekom.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:45:34 -0000
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] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Mark Tinka
- [mpls] Fwd: LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 N.Leymann
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Rob Shakir
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Mikael Abrahamsson
- [mpls] Fwd: LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Bin Mo (bmo)
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Bin Mo (bmo)
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Bin Mo (bmo)
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Vishwas Manral
- Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6 Rajiv Asati (rajiva)