Modifying RFC5549 VPNv4 over IPv6 next hop handling procedures
draft-litkowski-bess-vpnv4-ipv6-nh-handling-00
Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Stephane Litkowski , Swadesh Agrawal , Keyur Patel , Shunwan Zhuang | ||
Last updated | 2020-05-07 (Latest revision 2019-11-04) | ||
Replaced by | draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision | |
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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
RFC4364 and RFC4659 define respectively BGP extensions to provide VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 services. When defined RFC5549 has brought up an inconsistency in how the next hop is encoded when a VPN-IPv4 NLRI carries an IPv6 next hop compared to RFC4364 and RFC4659. For some reasons, existing and deployed implementations of RFC5549 haven't followed the specification and are using an VPN-IPv6 next hop as in RFC4364 and RFC4659. Moving these implementations to be compliant with RFC5549 may break existing network deployments. This document proposes a modification of RFC5549 to enable compliancy of these implementations. These document also proposes additional modifications of RFC5549 to address missing points.
Authors
Stephane Litkowski
Swadesh Agrawal
Keyur Patel
Shunwan Zhuang
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)