Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x836.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4dc4afb9e1cso1521651cf.0 for ; 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 (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 ; 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> In-Reply-To: From: Daryll Swer Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 23:27:19 +0530 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: X-Gm-Features: AS18NWDkOVF88Z9Aloci9qoesH6Put2oydk3iTZAjhQ64Ttgr7E7L0jPtp9cxTM Message-ID: To: Chongfeng Xie 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 , v6ops-chairs , list X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bv6ops=5D_Re=3A_WG_Last_Call=3A_draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ip?= =?utf-8?q?v6only-underlay-13_=28Ends_2025-10-08=29?= List-Id: v6ops discussion list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --000000000000de86ef0640087d1f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 10:07, Chongfeng Xie 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 > *Date:* 2025-09-30 09:44 > *To:* Chongfeng Xie > *CC:* Brian E Carpenter ; Nick Buraglio > ; > draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay > ; v6ops-chairs > ; list > *Subject:* Re: Re: [v6ops] Re: WG Last Call: > draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-13 (Ends 2025-10-08) > Hi > > You said =E2=80=9CSR-MPLS in theory does work with IPv6-only underlay.=E2= =80=9D, by this >> statement you mean that SR-MPLS can interwork with IPv6-only underlay? O= r >> 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 > > > > On Tue, 30 Sept 2025 at 06:39, Chongfeng Xie > wrote: > >> >> Hi Daryll, >> >> Thank you for your comments. Perhaps the sentence in my draf is >> inaccurate and has caused some unnecessary misunderstandings. >> >> You said =E2=80=9CSR-MPLS in theory does work with IPv6-only underlay. = =E2=80=9D =EF=BC=8Cby >> this statement you mean that SR-MPLS can interwork with IPv6-only underl= ay? >> Or that SR-MPLS can be used for IPv6-only underlay? >> >> Best regards >> Chongfeng >> >> >> *From:* Daryll Swer >> *Date:* 2025-09-29 23:01 >> *To:* Chongfeng Xie >> *CC:* Brian E Carpenter ; Nick Buraglio >> ; >> draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay >> ; v6ops-chairs >> ; list >> *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 >> >> 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 >> >> >> --000000000000de86ef0640087d1f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=3D""
Hi=

It d= iscusses an approach to SR-MPLS data-plane with IPv6 control-plane, in whic= h 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, o= utside the scope of this topic.

To avoiding unnecessary misunderstanding, I plan= to remove the sentence you raised from my draft.
Sounds g= ood, thanks.=C2=A0

--<= /b>
Best = Regards
Daryll Swer


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

Hi Daryll,

T= hank you for sharing this draft, which is interesting. It discusses an appr= oach to SR-MPLS data-plane with IPv6 control-plane, in which each PE is con= figured with an IPv6 loopback address. This draft also provides an example = of transferring IPv4 traffic within and across SR-MPLS islands. Different f= rom this draft, my draft is mainly about transferring IPv4 traffic across m= ulti-domin IPv6-only network, the data plane is IPv6-only,=C2=A0 IPv6 is be= coming and hopefully will be the universal Internet protocol.
To avioding unnecessary mistanding, I plan to remove the senten= ce you raised from my draft.

Best regards
Chongfeng=C2=A0

From:=C2=A0Daryll Swer
Date:=C2=A02025-09-30=C2=A009:44
To:=C2=A0Chongfeng Xie
<= b>Subject:=C2=A0Re: Re: [v6ops] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-fram= ework-md-ipv6only-underlay-13 (Ends 2025-10-08)
3D""
Hi

You said =E2=80=9CSR-MPLS in theory does work with IP= v6-only underlay.=E2=80=9D, by this statement you mean that SR-MPLS can int= erwork with IPv6-only underlay? Or that SR-MPLS can be used for IPv6-only u= nderlay?=C2=A0 =C2=A0
SR-MPLS data plane, with is-is SR Ro= uting/Control plane over IPv6-only addressing on PtP links (no IPv4) and IP= v6-only overlay BGP/EVPN services.

--
Best Regards
Daryll Swer

On Tue, 3= 0 Sept 2025 at 06:39, Chongfeng Xie <chongfeng.xie@foxmail.com> wrote:

Hi Daryll,

Thank you for your comments.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Perhaps the sentence in my draf is inaccu= rate and has caused some unnecessary misunderstandings.

You said =E2=80=9CSR-MPLS=C2=A0in theory does work with IPv6-on= ly underlay.=C2=A0=E2= =80=9D =EF=BC=8Cby this statement you mean that SR-MPLS can interwork with = IPv6-only underlay? Or that SR-MPLS can be used for IPv6-only underlay?=C2= =A0 =C2=A0
Best regar= ds
Chongfeng
=C2=A0
From:=C2=A0Daryll Swer
<= div>Date:=C2=A02025-09-29=C2=A023:01
To:=C2=A0Chongfeng Xie=
Subject:=C2=A0Re: [v6op= s] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-13 (En= ds 2025-10-08)
3D""
Not sure if I replied to the wrong email thread and the authors of this= draft missed it, but I had a question.

A qui= ck question for the authors of this document, this line caught my eye:
Another TE alternative i= s MPLS, which can be SR-signaled or RSVP-TE=C2=A0signaled, however it is no= t IPv6-based and is out the scope of this=C2=A0document.
<= br>
SR-MPLS=C2=A0in theory (and to my knowledge by some popular v= endors' implementation) does work with IPv6-only underlay.=C2=A0 Would = that not make the above statement inaccurate?

Othe= r than the Service Provider aspect of SRv6 vs SR-MPLS-IPv6-only-AFI questio= n, I don't see issues with adopting this document.

--
Best Regards
Daryll Swer
--000000000000de86ef0640087d1f--