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) | ||
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.)