Modifying RFC5549 VPNv4 over IPv6 next hop handling procedures
draft-litkowski-bess-vpnv4-ipv6-nh-handling-00
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2019-11-04
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
BESS Working Group S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft S. Agrawal
Intended status: Informational Cisco
Expires: May 7, 2020 K. Patel
Arrcus
S. Zhuang
Huawei
November 4, 2019
Modifying RFC5549 VPNv4 over IPv6 next hop handling procedures
draft-litkowski-bess-vpnv4-ipv6-nh-handling-00
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.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
Litkowski, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft vpnv4-ipv6-nh-handling November 2019
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requested modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Modifying next hop encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Handling of VPN IPv4 multicast SAFI . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Deployment considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Problem statement
[RFC4364] and [RFC4659] define respectively BGP extensions to provide
VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 services.
[RFC4364] defines only VPN-IPv4 carried with an IPv4 next hop. For
historical reasons, as per Section 4.3.2 of [RFC4364], the next hop
address is encoded as a VPN-IPv4 address with an RD of 0. The
expected next hop length value is 12 bytes. As stated in
Section 4.3.2 of [RFC4364], the justification of using a VPN-IPv4
address in the next hop field came from [RFC2858] which required the
next hop address to be in the same address family as the Network
Layer Reachability Information.
Show full document text