Re: [Rift] RFC 5549

Bruno Rijsman <brunorijsman@gmail.com> Thu, 25 July 2019 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <brunorijsman@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4C51201DB for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iL9v7E4Epar2 for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 071CF1201D1 for <rift@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id k8so51388484eds.7 for <rift@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=sVM0wdCIcszL9KsYkIy0GSEfhvt8/14WVquEdiPDvZI=; b=HB1wMjh7hzGw933/+6IQZz8rdqOFyFYGnYTc1PvyZff6qzg8XJp5eIcHyg8acq47ze oT/CaentxFmHLIGd5MjHKpYI/8t3sayhMz/qCKfh+mC4rZ9sF7sa1wFgwW3M9CL+uh3J ehbHuwq6DWtSeuHZ3tilUAYhd3xfdcaBId3fPtV6jXHWCscanAMtfUCKdef93lh3Htle 5EfCIvLuy6QGR8SIJ4t0x4FZELinupDezdCKfKdgUKuvqrX/eZ0iBul6X/raSIe2LC3b ecw4hgTVdf5MSonJAna741OedSJ624SnpkuBccQw8sQn6/k9kNUXqpoYFO6c57GxbxIG N0Cw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=sVM0wdCIcszL9KsYkIy0GSEfhvt8/14WVquEdiPDvZI=; b=KcR4vVzuDHQf/kKjh69iTdSGupRXZDBkcZxLEYhqk5g0MUmuWXrauCRpNKwnnMRn1g EDk7ZlXcSf/idqCJSK9iK7459TMlsMIh/LqmddqyPUvMIUouj19BNlUyhHxkRnGi+5Gc yhTglQRZrp+hNgvC64VMchOkGnIWQ7FAX+6mkqTQrpFleL11B7Y5wARRAkJ8n/pSjFp3 BGgb1F7cOxcZyB323rnLEB3U0pK1e5P5yRdQNZa8O6tXOa9Uw418x8OmaK6sffIuF3kO vIxb5wUgrX1EAgkTr6JI14x3OzeK/1siYdYWdtu4b7eiJ/laJPLl3wykQg1AzaaT5X6Q NllA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVANBlUQHOpRC/VQCiWQkgsHWqHJBWjl3ofHHIuKhbOd5B+NQg0 TzYM3bYUhxfGc0JhKCt/qOw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwWfQTqgvx2kmM6SjJcEsn3sK8kZbggtLfOMSxPxiAKVIGCEKlsaWmR/pliQQtyIeclbzPo3w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:6d0:: with SMTP id n16mr78248364edy.168.1564087953382; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.122] (ip-213-127-46-121.ip.prioritytelecom.net. [213.127.46.121]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k25sm9717214ejp.65.2019.07.25.13.52.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bruno Rijsman <brunorijsman@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <DB9C4ED8-E55C-44B5-AF6F-C68E91572B98@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F8B95430-156B-4782-8404-ABE8E674854D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:52:31 +0200
In-Reply-To: <643DF6FA-82B0-4250-846A-0DF309C73870@cisco.com>
Cc: "rift@ietf.org" <rift@ietf.org>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
References: <643DF6FA-82B0-4250-846A-0DF309C73870@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/8GudwKKyCAVo1rDMWaiuBE8Dy-I>
Subject: Re: [Rift] RFC 5549
X-BeenThere: rift@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Routing in Fat Trees <rift.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rift/>
List-Post: <mailto:rift@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 20:52:38 -0000

Free Range Routing used this trick to support BGP routes with a destination IPv4 prefix but an IPv6 next-hop.

See https://www.theasciiconstruct.com/post/cumulus-basics-part-v-bgp-unnumbered <https://www.theasciiconstruct.com/post/cumulus-basics-part-v-bgp-unnumbered> (and search for the phrase "The NLRI describes an IPv4 subnet but the next hop is an IPv6 address.”).

— Bruno

> On Jul 25, 2019, at 10:16 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5549 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5549>
> 
> This is the BGP precedent for IPv4 forwarding over a v6 adjacency.
> 
> The next hop is resolved with AF v6 and the packet is v4.
> 
> I hope we can use that to avoid excessive amounts of text.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Pascal
> _______________________________________________
> RIFT mailing list
> RIFT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift