Technical Summary
This document reviews the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
protocol suite in the context of IPv6 and identifies gaps that must
be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols and
applications to be used with IPv6-only networks. This document is
intended to focus on gaps in the standards defining the MPLS suite,
and not to highlight particular vendor implementations (or lack
thereof) in the context of IPv6-only MPLS functionality.
In the data plane, MPLS fully supports IPv6 and MPLS labeled packets
can be carried over IPv6 packets in a variety of encapsulations.
However, support for IPv6 among MPLS control plane protocols, MPLS
applications, MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM),
and MIB modules is mixed, with some protocols having major gaps. For
most major gaps work is in progress to upgrade the relevant
protocols.
Working Group Summary
There is a good support in the working group for this draft, and it is needed
to figure out the gaps that needs to be filled to run MPLS in a IPv6 only
network; the draft point to several issues that needs to be addressed.
There were comments during wglc that has been addressed.
This document were one of the first documents that did go through the new
Quality Assurance(QA) that is started for Rtg Area documents. This review
was done in parallel with the wglc. The QA review concluded that this is a
very useful document of good quality. There were a set of technical and
editorial comments that were addressed in the process to resolve the wglc
comments.
The QA also resulted in a comment that said that this document is a gap
analysis and as such gives a description at one point in time, and ask if
this should be published as a living document instead.
This was discussed but the working group and the working group chairs
called consensus in a mail to the working group.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg12752.html
Saying:
"The working group chairs find that the working group have consensus to
move ahead with the document (version -02) as it has been updated after
the wglc and reviews.
The value in having the document publish by far outweigh not having it
published. The benefits in moving the reference to an appendix (or
removing them) is not comparable to have easily at hand when reading
the document."
That said the wg chairs are agreeable to, as soon as the RFC is published
start following the process of filling the MPLS/IPv6 gaps, we believe that this
eventually cover more than the MPLS specification and that it is a job that
will be relevant for the entire rtg area.
Document Quality
This is an informational and a gap analysis document, no implementations
are expected. On the other hand there are already activities and drafts
looks to filling the gaps identified in the document.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd.
Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director.