IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling

Eric Levy-Abegnoli <elevyabe@cisco.com> Fri, 24 April 2009 08:52 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 2BB863A6D4E for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 jKWUd8fl1Rgp for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE223A6D3F for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1LxH8t-000Gk0-Ll for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:52:19 +0000
Received: from [144.254.224.140] (helo=ams-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <elevyabe@cisco.com>) id 1LxH8g-000GhX-5W for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:52:12 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,240,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="39060106"
Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2009 08:52:03 +0000
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3O8q39k026571; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:52:03 +0200
Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3O8q3AI004684; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:52:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-335.cisco.com ([144.254.231.80]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:52:02 +0200
Received: from [144.254.53.106] ([144.254.53.106]) by xmb-ams-335.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:52:02 +0200
Message-ID: <49F17DB4.60909@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:52:04 +0200
From: Eric Levy-Abegnoli <elevyabe@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
CC: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, 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> <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49F0FAD0.2050605@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Apr 2009 08:52:02.0229 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF769650:01C9C4B9]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1598; t=1240563123; x=1241427123; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=elevyabe@cisco.com; z=From:=20Eric=20Levy-Abegnoli=20<elevyabe@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Ideas=20for=20IPv6=20BGP=20and=20tunnel ling |Sender:=20; bh=yJavu/cEvyrG6bK7bBiqRtpdZSzB4G28Sh0bJbQ/ceg=; b=uBZqa3IZRm+ecVLj9lPvRwqNOBQUm76Zte2d8FKku1yHdhP1e7Lny68bch +sqZtO5g0hEP8YBLSFjUVyRGmqECsbz4ibwaTkJ2d9r2PFBgtmczHzmR+i0W srp1J8maSj;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=elevyabe@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Brian,
Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> 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.
>   
That sort of became RFC4798, with focus on MPLS tunnelling
>   
>> 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?
>   
Any tunnelling of v6 over v4 would do, and each mechanism has its own 
spec. They just "work" regardless of the v6 content (for instance BGP 
v6). So I don't think we need to specify it further.
Eric
>     Brian
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email