[v6ops] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-13 (Ends 2025-10-08)

Daryll Swer <contact@daryllswer.com> Tue, 30 September 2025 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <contact@daryllswer.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: v6ops@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757406B5DBB0 for <v6ops@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=daryllswer.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rFLXxEUov8Oa for <v6ops@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x836.google.com (mail-qt1-x836.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::836]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C31BA6B5DBA9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x836.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4dc4afb9e1cso1521651cf.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=daryllswer.com; s=google; t=1759255077; x=1759859877; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=0nLo5Ny+owvNgLBzFaDtKjBU0wygkqgn/DbuOfdSdT0=; b=X/ev5flc/yn1B7q3L0p7/oVFo9W7UQNMatr3Bon8WscQBD1Sis37xKCYddCCtxo/zB 4wTyTZRDGgd/toWPphd/yxXVJpKiSMly8O0wlX3zjC9n3Kc+3RciGn/gX1PRdG/UCQbs +s2e0XDP7FQ8LHqSYMSGxjvtJVXq0i0c1R5Hf10TowRoDBX6I2WC4QCtHZt9GhNCO5Hp axAE55uaB6NWNRx3iWVJJEijoEl3N9WAjcPgrLPIAsMPGQbQTDpBKHIRb9zlxIebyXM7 qr7B0bO7HOLdxfqDJ2gzxqR0xS3ZGMazrCNGj0GplmxZ1UvuIKsCFIDJy3PmwNkIb1h1 1APQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1759255077; x=1759859877; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=0nLo5Ny+owvNgLBzFaDtKjBU0wygkqgn/DbuOfdSdT0=; b=P7R21dskTpCMa2vIsOvaYFVAXG1ek//hFROo0KbhPt+eaYIpaPK+7qyq48ZFFPEpaD 5uqE212BuGgOvf1a7npSJgYq1hPsQdXnJqexKfqbSGvfQWnyOoAnqZmkuZBGVthotXo2 4qZAUea/miRhAIXDP/AgskrYjuei/uAdpmWB26Ov6na6zTH4oYXsn0iFRlx/pMrgQl8i CAcyvDdhogSkCFOZpfQjlIMUmeHt7vc9vFXOgscJllNZcnEGIPLiYS59Kd4BQ5EjFC5w TCX98jWKp8xEG606PcscfHVDzdQ5COCmcjK0bCfz8+X1wp9i++MY4kZUeVUW0WCDgPml sMxQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWVFS+w1/rkrSLfCNWWQueGIo0mDKYusAoVR9ugn7XuoXgG5XISM9jySVfgFP5q/7G5rcEu4A==@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy3YcW3ldL8IkzoTwtjSLnKjZ39kVrFI4Q0U58kgA7qR86SiezI wyy5q8LdF1TPiBgdzaDJ3s/o6eLFFxV38fkK84wHBNo0QRRU1PV2rVus2IUFdz/zUUk7gc+C71n y7E409KGKBA==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncv5fL35KC/GEMyCCELMFT0Zc/RQv6ZZ6+c4CtB3uBAstF5udKyNYgM2vFXHkc1 x5U6BFb4eWwpi91G7kBQc6HWC7/NJNxYXbh08QQOHQHWs0IyTUESUn+ZLbfZxPngtOglxgrvtzA Nx0+qZwt0xlk8/fDPRMn9zmooMKIOBw252GQOXR+sMJNZTiyqb00d6PPCHF2MwokRLF7qihnAZu WpJQWw9E9hXS+WA92sKNC2OOaZ7jdxpldUOn9ikO3orivRwzxNbtH5vbwKU3aAie+lpcX7N71FL D8Zgw00dZVa7MkUIvZm4xeG4AL7fvWjmshWrRtA6Ib8iRC8M9U4GymyaqKR9cnFekFL3gV/hUUE 8KAxyWElN1fCL9gPaSNSHOZ11Yun0vUz8pmCYUvnihap16JX6l+xQRL2g2FB6Hzvlk4FXzzn763 A+n+baFRT3OSEN6qcyB8CJfJ1+mmWc/ema
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHWsYG0Tegormi+ssB4ykUydi3Xc/GdAuZzhtqLKjHhl5WsIf9Laz6YeIlDGUXQIkJQNRtOjw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1b10:b0:4b4:9169:455d with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4e4046b44eamr11977111cf.7.1759255076864; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-f43.google.com (mail-qv1-f43.google.com. [209.85.219.43]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d75a77b69052e-4db119f0142sm102285471cf.42.2025.09.30.10.57.56 for <v6ops@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-78f15d58576so1467226d6.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXoOZOAcR3V8Bncqaf+24ZlAG1sVtytnCS5nw8QQ1cpnjM4rucUXU2z/IeTtSDVo8rf63Z4Ow==@ietf.org
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1246:b0:7f0:e84e:b2b5 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-869b1066fd7mr62654876d6.30.1759255075909; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <175874908805.1189618.16485773018746725265@dt-datatracker-6c6cdf7f94-h6rnn> <a41ec2a6-f65b-4ac3-9040-c9addde5205f@gmail.com> <tencent_4EBA177AE5035D230152739899A1C636550A@qq.com> <CACyFTPGcrY9-coQTioJ7M9QsXCjwn1Mvp21XtcBbghr7q1mL9g@mail.gmail.com> <tencent_B4402A0E0133D55882CAFDC2B4FCA2EB0C07@qq.com> <CACyFTPH0eHdYJxea-beaL+2ytvngjo26AojYq=AYM8Jnj0X=ZA@mail.gmail.com> <tencent_18B39258F4CAD042A0FCAAEB1040278E6B07@qq.com>
In-Reply-To: <tencent_18B39258F4CAD042A0FCAAEB1040278E6B07@qq.com>
From: Daryll Swer <contact@daryllswer.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 23:27:19 +0530
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACyFTPF3q2=5LvM8+nodw=toDcYnnV0XCUTYm3YL6jsW5bW35A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Gm-Features: AS18NWDkOVF88Z9Aloci9qoesH6Put2oydk3iTZAjhQ64Ttgr7E7L0jPtp9cxTM
Message-ID: <CACyFTPF3q2=5LvM8+nodw=toDcYnnV0XCUTYm3YL6jsW5bW35A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000de86ef0640087d1f"
Message-ID-Hash: NH6BISPG5XCFT2PP6HYYPMBETZNUOTLL
X-Message-ID-Hash: NH6BISPG5XCFT2PP6HYYPMBETZNUOTLL
X-MailFrom: contact@daryllswer.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-v6ops.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay <draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay@ietf.org>, v6ops-chairs <v6ops-chairs@ietf.org>, list <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [v6ops] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-13 (Ends 2025-10-08)
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/sN6u9K7uvKrl1GKgb0f0DCGbAVU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:v6ops-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:v6ops-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:v6ops-leave@ietf.org>

Hi

It discusses an approach to SR-MPLS data-plane with IPv6 control-plane, in
> which each PE is configured with an IPv6 loopback address.

Yes, for SR-MPLS data plane with IPv6 control-plane, the PE and P (both)
would all be IPv6-only. But vendor support is a different question, of
course, outside the scope of this topic.

To avoiding unnecessary misunderstanding, I plan to remove the sentence you
> raised from my draft.

Sounds good, thanks.

*--*
Best Regards
Daryll Swer
Website: daryllswer.com
<https://l.shortlink.es/l/54377bc99ae74121293cf9cec9cea170808de1c7?u=2153471>


On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 10:07, Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Hi Daryll,
>
> Thank you for sharing this draft, which is interesting. It discusses an
> approach to SR-MPLS data-plane with IPv6 control-plane, in which each PE is
> configured with an IPv6 loopback address. This draft also provides an
> example of transferring IPv4 traffic within and across SR-MPLS islands.
> Different from this draft, my draft is mainly about transferring IPv4
> traffic across multi-domin IPv6-only network, the data plane is IPv6-only,
> IPv6 is becoming and hopefully will be the universal Internet protocol.
>
> To avioding unnecessary mistanding, I plan to remove the sentence you
> raised from my draft.
>
> Best regards
> Chongfeng
>
> *From:* Daryll Swer <contact@daryllswer.com>
> *Date:* 2025-09-30 09:44
> *To:* Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>
> *CC:* Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; Nick Buraglio
> <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>;
> draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay
> <draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay@ietf.org>; v6ops-chairs
> <v6ops-chairs@ietf.org>; list <v6ops@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [v6ops] Re: WG Last Call:
> draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-13 (Ends 2025-10-08)
> Hi
>
> You said “SR-MPLS in theory does work with IPv6-only underlay.”, by this
>> statement you mean that SR-MPLS can interwork with IPv6-only underlay? Or
>> that SR-MPLS can be used for IPv6-only underlay?
>
> SR-MPLS data plane, with is-is SR Routing/Control plane over IPv6-only
> addressing on PtP links (no IPv4) and IPv6-only overlay BGP/EVPN services.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-sr-mpls-ipv6-control-plane-05
>
> *--*
> Best Regards
> Daryll Swer
> Website: daryllswer.com
> <https://l.shortlink.es/l/cf6d7320fde161a90861786063d78b058fbd7fda?u=2153471>
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 06:39, Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Daryll,
>>
>> Thank you for your comments.   Perhaps the sentence in my draf is
>> inaccurate and has caused some unnecessary misunderstandings.
>>
>> You said “SR-MPLS in theory does work with IPv6-only underlay. ” ,by
>> this statement you mean that SR-MPLS can interwork with IPv6-only underlay?
>> Or that SR-MPLS can be used for IPv6-only underlay?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Chongfeng
>>
>>
>> *From:* Daryll Swer <contact@daryllswer.com>
>> *Date:* 2025-09-29 23:01
>> *To:* Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com>
>> *CC:* Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; Nick Buraglio
>> <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>;
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay
>> <draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay@ietf.org>; v6ops-chairs
>> <v6ops-chairs@ietf.org>; list <v6ops@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] Re: WG Last Call:
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-13 (Ends 2025-10-08)
>> Not sure if I replied to the wrong email thread
>> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/stkHN98Lg8ELLjHmxMEhl_7WFZE/>
>> and the authors of this draft missed it, but I had a question.
>>
>> A quick question for the authors of this document, this line caught my
>> eye:
>>
>>> Another TE alternative is MPLS, which can be SR-signaled or
>>> RSVP-TE signaled, however it is not IPv6-based and is out the scope of
>>> this document.
>>
>>
>> SR-MPLS in theory (and to my knowledge by some popular vendors'
>> implementation) does work with IPv6-only underlay.  Would that not make the
>> above statement inaccurate?
>>
>> Other than the Service Provider aspect of SRv6 vs SR-MPLS-IPv6-only-AFI
>> question, I don't see issues with adopting this document.
>>
>> *--*
>> Best Regards
>> Daryll Swer
>> Website: daryllswer.com
>> <https://l.shortlink.es/l/385b89dda8793fedd8b55877bb0c17a2c2e1e943?u=2153471>
>>
>>