Modifying RFC5549 VPNv4 over IPv6 next hop handling procedures
draft-litkowski-bess-vpnv4-ipv6-nh-handling-00

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-05-07 (latest revision 2019-11-04)
Replaced by draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-litkowski-bess-vpnv4-ipv6-nh-handling-00.txt

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 (slitkows@cisco.com)
Swadesh Agrawal (swaagrawa@cisco.com)
Keyur Patel (keyur@arrcus.com)
Shunwan Zhuang (zhuangshunwan@huawei.com)

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