Skip to main content

Scenarios and Protocol Extension Requirements of a Generalized IPv6 Tunnel
draft-li-rtgwg-gip6-protocol-ext-requirements-03

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Expired & archived
Authors Xinxin Yi , Zhenbin Li , Qiangzhou Gao , Bing Liu , Tianran Zhou , Shuping Peng
Last updated 2025-09-04 (Latest revision 2025-03-03)
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:

Abstract

IPv6 provides extension header mechanism for additional functions. There are emerging features based on the extension headers, such as SRv6, Network Slicing, Alternate Marking, iOAM, DetNet etc. In some networks, the operators might want to leverage these new features but since the network system still using some lagecy encapsulations other than IPv6 (e.g. VxLAN, GRE etc.), these features are just not applicable for them. This document introduces some cases of such scenarios, and discusses the potential requirement of defining a new Generalized IPv6 Tunnel (GIP6). With GIP6, all the additional functions defined as IPv6 extension headers could be easily supported, so that the legacy encapsulations could migrate to a unified solution rather than sccaterred upgrade in each legacy technologies, which is heavy burden for the industry. Considering network devices have different capabilities of IPv6 extension header processing, this document also analyses the issues found during the deployment of the above new features using IPv6 extension headers and the protocol extension requirements for IPv6 capability advertisement are defined.

Authors

Xinxin Yi
Zhenbin Li
Qiangzhou Gao
Bing Liu
Tianran Zhou
Shuping Peng

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)