IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 24 April 2009 20:45 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 912F528C254 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.456
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.961, 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 Fxl8zI0CVNWO for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17473A6DFD for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1LxSEk-00029D-GY for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:43:06 +0000
Received: from [209.85.200.171] (helo=wf-out-1314.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>) id 1LxSEO-00027a-0d for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:42:59 +0000
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so1077898wff.32 for <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:42:43 -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=O8RD6prNXhvbRaE0GJKb0qPCkC1jAzOaMuJrNo2sW1k=; b=K1BfUPjuPkKJBkq10P15+O2hfxdzTOLU/GpIojXwBjF9qvKaChGkI/e49AWL0Ob3Fd raTvM2ThPGICluucenEkWKY+rJRIItSbJpUxe0ol3MPVdoq3QBcfLW2pShn4MHf/ATOf xwe47vNPyHTBwL0wh7CsGrC0pBM8eK29YFt8Y=
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=dvcUNUy8IALh8napDd2WG2WMU0nz72vQRv83OGsBJEsJmCvQK2/tUTOmED8TT3uSMx m1KoYz7y1yA7jjDtSRAEqnshM11s0XazMIn8awoF3MC5bBshFAijwKxE6PnfwPMWmvdr p6zum5RaID+/RhjyUmXEYTu7as1bMkdusBNCI=
Received: by 10.142.246.20 with SMTP id t20mr939461wfh.233.1240605763251; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.1.1.5? (118-92-157-104.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.92.157.104]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 27sm3012276wfa.2.2009.04.24.13.42.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <49F22434.3080300@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:42:28 +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: Eric Levy-Abegnoli <elevyabe@cisco.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> <49F17DB4.60909@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <49F17DB4.60909@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On 2009-04-24 20:52, Eric Levy-Abegnoli wrote:
> 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

Exactly; the non-MPLS methods were thrown away, although they
seem to be completely valid. Why isn't there an informational
or BCP RFC describing them? It really seems like a gap.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email