IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 23 April 2009 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A193A6A8E for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.355
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.860, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 ymAwCkbYgG4q for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDAF73A69B2 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Lx8QS-000FA7-OG for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:33:52 +0000
Received: from [209.85.200.173] (helo=wf-out-1314.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>) id 1Lx8QG-000F9T-H5 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:33:46 +0000
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so692848wff.32 for <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qa9r9fcwexAVvLrcANhmw3k1UjfxRDUUAT3iP3+MZyA=; b=PzcHzkuQaIY527k7jczlDnwJ4SBTpDEhYEqs6r370gV31/Aejh2AZAzI6zcR7rwD+X hIt6pV4A6OsQvWXuf3rt5PESYdYQPCAMbxsMsQ/O5VezWRCjGx9NHn5weJX5Lr0hNZRJ I0W6iEqZgY4JY7jyHnlZDvx4oyqWBxMlC/1p8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=nNZrst/ZIKJ7SxpKhKALvlqPe7LLy0qPIA+EQYeKQCerhM017MTlnSoA2c58aLM/rB O2puXmbdaZzQoaMoMb+uBWrRZlNuCt3uW+9VJSdCVB1wDhWjiPOx+PKS1qUuCzzIXqXz Hl9Vlj9CGGtBEjug/luvDD+x4CJjLpBOC6p/E=
Received: by 10.142.54.17 with SMTP id c17mr498055wfa.43.1240529620127; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm174749wff.39.2009.04.23.16.33.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:33:36 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
CC: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling
References: <20090422020001.5A1013A6FF2@core3.amsl.com> <49EE7DC1.2090008@gmail.com> <49EF1EF8.1090206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49EF91AC.1080308@gmail.com> <49EFEB97.8040807@mesh.ad.jp> <49F0396E.1040608@aaisp.net.uk> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0904231235460.48529@mignon.ki.iif.hu> <49F04E93.8090905@aaisp.net.uk> <alpine.LRH.2.00.0904231507420.32331@netcore.fi> <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2bbba3c10904230602p44df97cfl5f5cb2c48a496364@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Ole,

On 2009-04-24 01:02, Ole Troan wrote:
>> But I fear there so far the idea hasn't gotten much traction. In fact, the
>> RFC4798 predecessor documents [1] included ability to set up tunnels over
>> GRE and similar non-MPLS encapsulations.  This was explicitly _removed_
>> because the solution was targeted at MPLS networks, not as a general purpose
>> BGP-signalled tunneling mechanism.
>>
>> [1] take a look at e.g:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-00
> 
> I thought 6PE and BGP tunnelling got split into separate documents?
> obviously my memory isn't serving me right.

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ngtrans-bgp-tunnel-04.txt
(thankyou Google)

I don't recall why that never became an RFC.

> you can still do BGP tunnelling with existing mechanisms. PEs are
> connected through a full mesh of BGP peerings. each PE has an
> automatic tunnelling interface (6to4, automatic tunnelling). BGP
> next-hops are the 6to4/v4compatible address. note that 6to4 is only
> used internally and the sites connecting to the PE uses native
> addresses.

Is there a full specification of this? Maybe the above draft
needs to be revived?

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email