Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core using IPv4 Provider Edge Routers (4PE)
draft-mishra-idr-v4-islands-v6-core-4pe-06
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Gyan Mishra , Jeff Tantsura , Mankamana Prasad Mishra , Sudha Madhavi , Adam Simpson , Shuanglong Chen | ||
| Last updated | 2023-10-22 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-mishra-idr-v4-islands-v6-core-4pe-06
BESS Working Group G. Mishra
Internet-Draft Verizon Inc.
Intended status: Informational J. Tantsura
Expires: 24 April 2024 Microsoft, Inc.
M. Mishra
Cisco Systems
S. Madhavi
Juniper Networks, Inc.
A. Simpson
Nokia
S. Chen
Huawei Technologies
22 October 2023
Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core using IPv4 Provider Edge Routers
(4PE)
draft-mishra-idr-v4-islands-v6-core-4pe-06
Abstract
As operators migrate from an IPv4 core to an IPv6 core for global
table internet routing, the need arises to be able provide routing
connectivity for customers IPv4 only networks. This document
provides a solution called 4Provider Edge, "4PE" that connects IPv4
islands over an IPv6-Only Core Underlay Network.
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
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 24 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. 4PE Design Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. 4PE Design procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. 4PE SR-MPLS Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. 4PE SRv6 Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. 4PE Deployment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Arbitrary topmost with all customer prefixes labeled . . 14
7.2. Arbitrary topmost with PE to PE LSP . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. Arbitrary topmost with per CE label table . . . . . . . . 15
7.4. Explicit Null topmost with all customer prefixes
labeled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.5. Explicit Null topmost with PE to PE LSP . . . . . . . . . 15
7.6. Explicit Null topmost with per CE label table . . . . . . 16
7.7. Implicit Null with all customer prefixes labeled . . . . 17
7.8. Implicit Null with PE to PE LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.9. Implicit Null with per CE label table . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.10. Arbitrary topmost with customer prefixes unlabeled . . . 18
7.11. Explicit Null topmost with customer prefixes unlabeled . 18
8. Crossing Multiple IPv6 Autonomous Systems . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Inter-AS 4PE Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2. Advertisement of IPv4 prefixes using Inter-AS Style
Procedure A Procedures for 4PE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.3. Advertisement of labeled IPv4 prefixes Inter-AS Style
Procedure B and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.3.1. Advertisement of labeled IPv4 prefixes Inter-AS Style
Procedure B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.3.2. Multi-hop advertisement of labeled IPv4 prefixes
Inter-AS Style Procedure C . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. RFC 8950 Applicability to 4PE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Cisco 4PE Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.2. Juniper 4PE Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.3. Nokia 4PE Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.4. Huawei 4PE Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Introduction
"6PE" [RFC4798] is the specification for connecting IPv6 Islands over
IPv4 MPLS Core using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE). This document
explains the "4PE" design procedures and how to interconnect IPv4
islands over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) [RFC3031] LDPv6
[RFC5036] enabled IPv6-Only core, Segment Routing (SR) enabled SR-
MPLS [RFC8660] IPv6-Only core or SRv6 [RFC8986] IPv6-Only core. The
4PE routers exchange the IPv4 reachability information transparently
over the core using the Multiprotocol Border Gateway Protocol (MP-
BGP) over IPv6. In doing so, the BGP Next Hop field egress PE FEC
(Forwarding Equivalency Class) is used to convey the IPv6 address of
the 4PE router learned dynamically via IGP so that the dynamically
established IPv6-signaled MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) or SRv6
Network Programming IPv6 forwarding path instantiation and can be
utilized without any explicit tunnel configuration.
The 4PE design is an alternative to the use of standard overlay
tunneling technologies such as GRE/IP or any other tunneling
technologies which requries explicit tunnel termination at the tunnel
endpoints which creates added layer of complexity to the existing
MPLS or Segment routing underlay transport layer. The 4PE design
provides a solution for MPLS as well as Segment Routing environment,
where all tunnels are established dynamically using existing Service
Provider Network MPLS signalling or SRv6 Network Programming thereby
addressing environments where the effort to configure and maintain
explicitly configured tunnels is not acceptable.
Alternative designs exist in 6MAN and v6OPS Working groups related to
4to6 transition technologies referred to as "IPv4aas" IPv4 as-
a-service solutions [RFC9313] such as 464XLAT, Dual--Stack Lite, MAP-
E, MAP-T, however this document focuses on a BGP based solution "4PE'
to connecting IPv4 islands over an IPv6 Core network.
4PE design specifies operations of the 4PE approach for
interconnection of IPv4 islands over an MPLS LDP IPv6 core, Segment
Routing SR-MPLS IPv6 core or SRv6 IPv6 core. The approach requires
that the Provider Edge (PE) routers Provider Edge - Customer Edge
(PE-CE) connections to Customer Edge (CE) IPv4 islands to be Dual
Stack using Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) routers [RFC4760], while the
core is a [RFC5565] Softwire Mesh Framework single protocol Provider
(P) Core routers, are required only to support IPv6-Only dataplane to
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
transport IPv4 packets over an IPv6-Only Core supporting three core
technologies, MPLS LDPv6, Segment Routing SR-MPLS and Segment Routing
IPv6 (SRv6). The approach uses MP-BGP over IPv6, relies on
identification of the 4PE routers by their IPv6 address, and uses an
underlay transport label switched IPv6-signaled MPLS, SR-MPLS LSP's,
underlay SRv6 SRv6-TE or SRv6 SRv6-BE Best Effort path instantiation
without any requirements for complex explicit tunnel configurations.
In this document an 'IPv4 island' is a network running native IPv4 as
per [RFC1812]. A typical example of an IPv4 island would be a
customer's IPv4 site connected via its IPv4 Customer Edge (CE) router
to one (or more) Dual Stack Provider Edge router(s) of a Service
Provider. These Dual Stacked or IPv4-Only Provider Edge routers
(4PE) are connected to an IPv6 MPLS core network.
The interconnection method described in this document typically
applies to an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or Enterprise that has
an MPLS LDP IPv6 core, Segment Routing SR-MPLS IPv6 core or SRv6 IPv6
core, that is already offering IPv6 BGP/MPLS VPN services, that wants
to continue support IPv4 services to its customers. These 4PE PE
Edge routers provide connectivity to the Customer Edge (CE) IPv4
islands Edge routers. They may also provide IPv4 and IPv6 services
simultaneously (IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, L3VPN services, L2VPN
services, etc.). With the 4PE approach, no tunnels need to be
explicitly configured, and no IPv6 headers need to be inserted in
front of the IPv4 packets between the customer and provider edge, PE-
CE Demark.
The main use case for 4PE is where the operator needs to provide IPv4
island connectivity over an IPv6 Core network that uses MPLS, SR-
MPLS, SRv6 for the underlay transport where Layer 3 IP/VPN overlay
4VPE or VPN-IPv4 AFI/SAFI 1/128 [RFC4364] is not utilized such as for
internet service providers carrying the internet routing table in the
global table and not in a Layer 3 IP/VPN separate VRF instance or any
other similar style Layer 3 VPN service offering.
The PE-CE interface between the edge router of the IPv4 island
Customer Edge (CE) router and the 4PE router is a native IPv4
interface which can be multiple physical or logical. Static routing
or a dynamic routing protocol Interior Gateway Protocol IGP, Open
Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System Intermediate System
(ISIS) or Exterior Gatway Protocol such as BGP may run between the CE
router and the 4PE router for the distribution of IPv4 Network Layer
Reachability Information (NLRI).
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
The 4PE design described in this document can be used for customers
that require both IPv4 and IPv6 service as well as for customers that
require IPv4-Only connectivity thus providing global IPv4
reachability.
Deployment of the 4PE approach over an existing IPv6 MPLS or Segment
Routing core uses existing mechanisms in the core underlay transport,
using new standardized procedures and techinques for ingress and
egress 4PE specification standardization defined in this document.
Configuration and operations of the 4PE approach has similarities
with the configuration and operations of an IPv4 VPN service
[RFC4364] or IPv6 VPN service [RFC4659] over an IPv6 MPLS or Segment
Routing core because they all use MP-BGP to distribute IPv4 Network
Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) for transport over an IPv6
Core.
2. 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.
3. 4PE Design Protocol Overview
Each IPv4 site is connected to at least one Provider Edge router that
is located on the border of the MPLS [RFC3031] LDP IPv6, Segment
Routing SR-MPLS [RFC8660] IPv6 or SRv6 [RFC8986] Core Network. The
PE router providing IPv4 connectivity to the IPv4 Islands over an
IPv6-Only Core is called a 4PE router. The 4PE router MUST be IPv4
and IPv6 dual stack. The 4PE router MUST be configured with at least
one IPv6 address on the IPv6 Core side interface and at least one
IPv4 address on the IPv4 Customer side PE-CE interface. In the MPLS
LDP IPv6 and SR-MPLS IPv6 Core, or SRv6 corescenario, the 4PE IPv6
address Loopback0 MUST to be routable within the IPv6 core. For the
MPLS LDP IPv6 Core there MUST be an LDP IPv6 label binding, and for
SR-MPLS an IPv6 Prefix / Node SID label binding and for SRv6 SRH
processing of SRv6 SID list and SRv6 Network Programming [RFC8986]
SRv6 End.DX4 (Cross Connect to Next Hop), End.DT4 (Table lookup),
End.DT46, using SRv6 BGP Overlay Services [RFC9252] for the 4PE SRv6
service overlay.
The source side 4PE router receiving IPv4 packets from the local
Attachment Circuit (AC) PE-CE IPv4-Only or IPv4 and IPv6 Dual Stacked
interface Source IPv4 Site is called the Ingress 4PE router relative
to these IPv4 packets sent by the Source CE IPv4 Island. The
destination side 4PE router forwarding IPv4 packets to the local
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
Attachment Circuit (AC) PE-CE IPv4-Only or IPv4 and IPv6 Dual stacked
interface from the Source IPv4 Site sending location is called the
Egress 4PE router relative to these IPv4 packets received by the CE
IPv4 Island.
Every ingress 4PE router can signal an IPv6 MPLS LSP, SR-MPLS LSP or
instantiate an SRv6 Best Effort (BE) or Segment Routing Traffic
Engineering (SR-TE) [RFC9256]. path to send to any egress 4PE router
without injecting any additional prefixes into the IPv6 core other
then the IPv6 signaled next hop Loopback0 used to identify the
Ingress and Egress 4PE router.
Interconnecting IPv4 islands over an MPLS LDP IPv6 Core, Segment
Routing SR-MPLS IPv6 core, or SRv6 IPv6 core. takes place through the
following steps:
1. Exchange IPv4 reachability information among 4PE Ingress and
Egress PE routers using MP-BGP [RFC2545]:
The 4PE routers exchange IPv4 prefixes over MP-BGP sessions as per
[RFC2545] running over IPv6, MP-BGP Address Family Identifier (AFI)
IPv4=1. In doing so, the 4PE routers convey their IPv6 address FEC
label binding as the BGP Next Hop for the advertised IPv4 prefixes.
The IPv6 address of the egress 4PE next hop router is encoded using
[RFC8950] next hop encoding for the BGP Next Hop field with a length
of 16 or 32 bytes. The next hop encoding [RFC8950] is constructed
using MP-BGP for IPv6 [RFC2545] is a 16 byte IPv6 Global Unicast
Address followed by the 16 byte IPv6 Link Local Address if the Next
Hop is on a common subnet with peer. The ingress and egress 4PE
router has the option to bind a label to the IPv4 prefix as per
[RFC8277] using BGP Labeled Unicast herinafter called BGP-LU, AFI/
SAFI Address Family (AFI) / Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI) 2-tuple "1/4".
2. Transport IPv4 packets from the ingress 4PE router to the egress
4PE router over IPv6-signaled LSPs, SRv6 BE or SR-TE instantiated
path over an IPv6-only core:
The Ingress 4PE router MAY forward IPv4 NLRI as Labeled prefixes
using BGP-LU SAFI over the IPv6-signaled LSP towards the Egress 4PE
router identified by the IPv4 address advertised in the IPv6 next hop
encoding per [RFC8950].
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
The 4PE design is fully applicable to both full mesh BGP peering
between all Ingress and Egress PE's as well as when Route Reflectors
iBGP peering is used where the PEs are all Route Reflector Clients or
other use cases such as in a BGP only Data Center [RFC7938] where
Spine layer eBGP Route Servers are utilized as per BGP specification
[RFC4271].
4. 4PE Design procedures
In this design, using IPv6 Next hop encoding defined in [RFC8950]
allows a 4PE router that has to forward an IPv4 packets to
automatically determine the IPv6-signaled LSP to use for a particular
IPv4 destination by using the MP-BGP IPv4 NLRI.
To ensure interoperability between routers that implement the 4PE
design over MPLS [RFC3031] LDP IPv6 Core described in this document,
ingress and egress 4PE SHOULD support building the underlay tunneling
using IPv6-signaled MPLS LSPs established by LDP [RFC5036] or
Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP-TE) [RFC3209].
To ensure interoperability between routers that implement the 4PE
design over SR-MPLS [RFC8660], SHOULD support building static or
stateful PCE SID list for IPv6 signaled LSP to egress 4PE IPv6
Loopback endpoint, or SRv6 [RFC8986] SRH processing of SRv6 SID list
[RFC8754] and SRv6 Network Programming [RFC8986] SRv6 End.DX4 (Cross
Connect to Next Hop), End.DT4 (Table lookup), End.DT46 using SRv6 BGP
Overlay Services [RFC9252] for the 4PE SRv6 service overlay, static
or stateful PCE SID list to egress 4PE IPv6 loopback endpoint.
When tunneling IPv4 packets over the IPv6 MPLS core, rather than
successively prepend an IPv6 header and then perform label imposition
based on the IPv6 header, the ingress 4PE Router has the option to
directly perform label imposition of the IPv4 header Xwithout
prepending any IPv6 header. The (outer) label imposed MUST
correspond to the IPv6- signaled LSP starting on the ingress 4PE
Router and ending on the egress 4PE Router.
While this design concept can operate in some situations using a
single underlay topmost transport label, one option is to use a a
second level of labels that are bound to the customer CE's IPv4
prefixes via MP-BGP advertisements in accordance with [RFC8277].
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
The reason for labeling the IPv4 prefixes is that it allows for
Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) on the IPv6 Label Switch Router (LSR),
upstream of the egress 4PE router, after the topmost label has been
popped, the Bototm of Stack (BOS) service label is now still present,
so the PHP node still transmits the labeled packets, instead of
having to transmit unlableled IPv4 packets and encapsulate them
appropriately so they are not dropped.
Another reason for second level bottom of stack label is for the
existing IPv6-signaled LSP that is using "IPv6 Explicit NULL label"
over the last hop because that LSP is already being used to transport
IPv6 traffic with the Pipe Diff-Serv Tunneling Model as defined in
[RFC3270]), thus could not be used to carry IPv4 with a single label
since the "IPv6 Explicit NULL label" cannot be used to carry native
IPv4 traffic [RFC3032], while it could be used to carry Labeled IPv4
traffic [RFC4182]. [RFC3032] section 2.2 states that the LSR that
pops the last label off the label stack must be able to identify the
packets network layer protocol in this case IPv4. However, the label
stack does not contain any field that explicitly carries the network
layer protocol. Thus the network layer protocol must be inferrable
from the value of the label which is popped from the bottom of the
label stack along with subsequent headers. It is up to the network
designer as to labeling the IPv4 prefixes or not based on the use
case and desired and requirements. There maybe cases where it is not
desirable to label the IPv4 prefixes and instead use a per CE label
table LSP to carry the per CE unlabled IPv4 prefixes in a separate
IPv4 routing context.
The label bound by MP-BGP to the IPv4 prefix indicates to the egress
4PE Router that the packet is an IPv4 packet. The label advertised
by the egress 4PE Router with MP-BGP MAY be an explicit Null label
Pipe mode Diff-Serv Tunneling Model use case as defined in [RFC3270],
so that the topmost label can be preserved Ultimate Hop POP (UHP) to
the egress PE. With the Default implicit-null Penultimate Hop (PHP)
mode, the egress LSR P node would POP the topmost label revealing the
native IPv4 packet which would be subsequently dropped as the Core
underlay is an IPv6-Only core. There maybe cases where implicit null
value 3 is not signaled by the egress PE either by default otherwise
and in such case the implicit null is not signaled to the PHP node
and thus is disabled. In this particular case explicit null label
and Pipe mode Diff-Serv Tunneling Model is not necessary as the
topmost label remains intact and preserved to the egress PE using any
"arbitrary label".
BGP/MPLS VPN [RFC4364] defines 3 label allocation modes for Layer 3
VPN's per prefix where all prefixes are labeld, Per-CE label
allocation mode where all prefixes from a CE next hop are given the
same label and a Per-VRF label allocation mode where all prefixes
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
that belong to a VRF are given the same label. These options are
available for L3 VPN for scalability and are applicable to the 4PE
design. The two level label stack using a per prefix label
allcoation mode is what is used in 6PE [RFC4798] with a requirement
to label all the IPv6 prefixes using BGP-LU [RFC8277]. The 4PE
design provides the same operator flxeiblity as BGP/MPLS VPN
[RFC4798], 2 level label stack option using Per-CE label allocation
mode where the next hop is label so all prefixes associated with CE
get the same label. The 4PE design provides the same operator
flxeiblity as BGP/MPLS VPN [RFC4798], 2 level label stack option
using Per-VRF label allocation mode where all prefixes within a VRF
get the same is label.
Every link in the IPv4 Internet must have an MTU of 576 octets or
larger per [RFC1122]. Therefore, on MPLS links that are used for
transport of IPv4, as per the 4PE approach, and that do not support
link-specific fragmentation and reassembly, the MTU must be
configured to at least 1280 octets plus the MPLS label stack
encapsulation overhead bytes.
Some IPv4 hosts might be sending packets larger than the MTU
available in the IPv6 MPLS core and rely on Path MTU discovery to
learn about those links. To simplify MTU discovery operations, one
option is for the network administrator to engineer the MTU on the
core facing interfaces of the ingress 4PE consistent with the core
MTU. ICMP ' Destination Unreachable' messages can then be sent back
by the ingress 4PE without the corresponding packets ever entering
the MPLS core. Otherwise, routers in the IPv6 MPLS network have the
option to generate an ICMP "Destination Unreachable" Fragmentation
Required Type 3 Code 4 message using mechanisms as described in
Section 2.3.2, "Tunneling Private Addresses through a Public
Backbone" of [RFC3032].
Note that in the above case, should a core router with an outgoing
link with an MTU smaller than 1280 receive an encapsulated IPv4
packet larger than 576, then the mechanisms of [RFC3032] may result
in the "Unreachable" message never reaching the sender. This is
because, according to [RFC4443], the underlay LSR (LSP or RSVP-TE
tunnel) will build an ICMP "Unreachable " message filled with the
invoking packet up to 1280 bytes, and when forwarding downstream
towards the egress PE as per [RFC3032], the MTU of the outgoing link
will cause the packet to be dropped. This may cause significant
operational problems; the originator of the packets will notice that
his data is not getting through, without knowing why and where they
are discarded. This issue would only occur if the above
recommendation to configure MTU on MPLS links of at least 1280 octets
plus encapsulation overhead is not used.
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
5. 4PE SR-MPLS Support
Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402] leverages the source-routing paradigm
to steer packets from a source node through a controlled set of
instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR
header in the MPLS data plane SR-MPLS [RFC8660] through a label stack
or IPv6 data plane using an Segment Routing Header (SRH) header via
SRv6 [RFC8754] to construct an SR path. Segment Routing will be
referred to hereinafter as "SR". SR uses instructions called
segments which can be topological segments used for transport
underlay traffic steering or service instructions for overlay
services. SR's Source Routing Architecture provides a mechansim to
steer a flow onto a topological path, while maintaining per flow
state only on the ingress source nodes within the SR domain. SR-MPLS
reuses the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) control plane as well as
the MPLS forwarding plane functions as the SR segments are
instantiated as MPLS labels and the Segment Routing SR-MPLS Header is
instantiated as a stack of MPLS labels. SR-MPLS L2 VPN and L3 VPN
services can be steered using Traffic Engineered paths using SR-TE
Policy coloring for the path instantiation per [RFC9256] and
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
The 4PE design suports the Segment Routing SR-MPLS architecture
[RFC8660], as SR-MPLS reuses the MPLS data plane with a new
forwarding context using topological SIDs. The 4PE underlay
signalling going from MPLS to SR-MPLS remains the same as the IPv6
LSP is still signalled as before from ingress PE to egress PE MPLS
data plane procedrues defined in [RFC3031]. The 4PE BGP overlay the
design for SR-MPLS is identical to MPLS where the Ingress and Egress
PE Label Stack on the 4PE router contains the Service label with
Bottom of Stack "S" bit set and contains the IPv4 NLRI prefixes
"labeled" using BGP-LU, IPv4 Address Family Identifier (AFI) IPv4
(value 1) Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI)(value 4).
4PE design with SR-MPLS data plane MUST also use "IPv6 Explicit Null
label" value 2 defined in [RFC4182] Pipe Diff-Serv Tunneling Model as
defined in [RFC3270].
SR-MPLS can use Inter-AS options for 4PE procedures which is
identical to MPLS as well as can use SR-TE Policy and Binding SID for
candidate path per [RFC9256] and
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
6. 4PE SRv6 Support
Segment Routing (SR) [RFC3031] SRv6 leverages the source-routing
paradigm to steer packets from a source node through a controlled set
of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with a new
SR header over an IPv6 data plane called an IPv6 Routing Extension
Header type 4 called a Segment Routing Header (SRH) header with IPv6
SRH encoding [RFC8754] to construct an SR steered path. SRv6 Network
Programming framework provides the mechanism based on segment
endpoint behaviors to encode a sequence of instructions called
Segments into an IPv6 header. SRv6 defines a topological or service
segment as an IPv6 address with is called hereinafter a SID or
"Segment ID". Each SID is encoded into an SRH header per [RFC8754]on
the SR domain source node in the SR domain to steer a flow onto a
topological path. In SRv6 each SID is an IPv6 address with format
LOC:FUNC:ARG where the LOCATOR field "LOC" is the L most significant
bits of the SID, followd by F bits of FUNCTION field "FUNC" and A
bits of ARGUMENT "ARG". Each node in the SRv6 domain has a "LOC"
prefix assigned which is routable and it leads to the SRv6 node which
instantiates the SID by performing the endpoint processing on the
node. The SRv6 SID FUNCTION "FUNC" field is used to encode the BGP/
MPLS L3 VPN [RFC4364] or BGP EVPN Service labels [RFC7432] as defined
in SRv6 BGP Overlay Services [RFC9252]. Intermediate nodes within an
SRv6 domain process the topolocial SID at each segment endpoint
defined in the SRH header until the packet reaches the egress PE
where decapsulation happens similar to BGP/MPLS L3 VPN [RFC4364],
where the service labels encoded in the FUNC field can be
instantiated and processed for the corresponding Layer 2 VPN and
Layer 3 VPN service specific endpoint functions. SRv6 based BGP
services referes to Layer 2 VPN and Layer 3 VPN overlay services with
BGP as a control plane and SRv6 as a Data Plane to provide Best
Effort (BE) which means that an SRH is not present and is reffered to
as SRv6-BE. SRv6 based BGP services referes to Layer 2 VPN and Layer
3 VPN overlay services with BGP as a control plane and SRv6 as a Data
Plane to provide Traffic Engineered (TE) which means that an SRH is
present is reffered to as SRv6-TE policy for SRH topological
instruction encoding for SR-TE Policy coloring for path steering
instantiation per [RFC9256] and
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]. SRv6 Service SID and
refers to an SRv6 SID associated with one of the service-specific
endpoint behaviors on the advertising PE router such as END.DT
(Table Lookup in a VRF) or END.DX (Cross Connect to a Next Hop)
behaviors for Layer 3 VPN services defined in SRv6 Network
Programming [RFC8986] BGP Prefix SID Attribue is used to carry the
SRv6 SIDs and their associaed BGP Address Families and defines a SRv6
L3 Service TLV which encodes the SRv6 Service SID Information for
SRv6 based L3 Services. SRv6-BE providing "Best Effort" connectivity
where an SRH is not present, the egress PE signals the SRv6 Service
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
SID with the BGP overlay service route and encapsulates the payload
in an outer IPv6 header where the destination address is the SRv6
Service SID enclosed in SRv6 Service TLV(s) provided by the Egress PE
in which case the underlay need only support plan IPv6 forwarding.
SRv6-TE provides connectivity over a "Traffic Engineered" (TE) path
by encapsulating the payload packet in an outer IPv6 header with the
segment list of the SR policy related to the SLA along with SRv6
Service SID enclosed in SRv6 Service TLV(s) assoicated with route
using SRH segment list encoding [RFC8754] from ingress PE to egress
PE, the egress PE colors the overlay service route with a Color
Extended Community [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] to
instantiate the steering of flows with per flow state only maintained
on the SRv6 source node and all underlay nodes whos SRv6 SID are part
of the SRH Segment List MUST support the SRv6 Data Plane forwarding.
In the 4PE design over an SRv6 network using SRv6 Netowrk Programming
[RFC8986] forwarding plane would use endpoint behavior "Endpoint with
decapsulation and IPv4 cross-connect" behavior ("End.DX4" for short)
is a variant of the End.X behavior for Global Table IPv4 Routing over
SRv6 Core. The End.DX4 SID MUST be the last segment in an SR Policy,
and it is associated with one or more L3 IPv4 adjacencies and and
SRv6 BGP Overlay Services [RFC9252] where the next hop encoding
[RFC8950] is constructed using MP-BGP for IPv6 [RFC2545] is a 16 byte
IPv6 Global Unicast Address followed by the 16 byte IPv6 Link Local
Address if the Next Hop. In the 4PE design the SRv6 L3 Service SID
is encoded as part of the SRv6 L3 Service TLV for SRv6 Netowrk
Programming [RFC8986] endpoint behavior End.DX4 BGP Prefix SID
Attribute encoding of SRv6 Service SID, SRv6 L3 Service TLV encoding
[RFC9252] advertised by egress PEs which supports SRv6 based Layer 3
Services along with Service SID enclosed in SRv6 Layer 3 Service TLV,
Label field for an IPv4 prefix is encoded with 20-bit label value set
as specified by BGP-LU [RFC8277] to the whole or portion of the
"FUNCTION" part of the SRv6 SID when the transposition encoding
scheme is used or otherwise set to NULL. The "FUNCTION" part of the
SRv6 SID now carries the overlay 4PE BGP-LU IPv4 Labeled prefix
identical to MPLS and SR-MPLS.
In the 4PE design over an SRv6 network using SRv6 Netowrk Programming
[RFC8986] forwarding plane would use endpoint behavior "Endpoint with
decapsulation and specific IPv4 table lookup" behavior ("End.DT4" for
short) is a variant of the End.T behavior for Global Table IPv4
Routing over SRv6 Core, The End.DT4 SID MUST be the last segment in
an SR Policy, and a SID instance is assocated with a IPv4 FIB
Table T. and SRv6 BGP Overlay Services [RFC9252] where the next hop
encoding [RFC8950] is constructed using MP-BGP for IPv6 [RFC2545] is
a 16 byte IPv6 Global Unicast Address followed by the 16 byte IPv6
Link Local Address if the Next Hop. In the 4PE design the SRv6 L3
Service SID is encoded as part of the SRv6 L3 Service TLV for SRv6
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
Netowrk Programming [RFC8986] endpoint behavior End.DT4 BGP Prefix
SID Attribute encoding of SRv6 Service SID, SRv6 L3 Service TLV
encoding [RFC9252] advertised by egress PEs which supports SRv6 based
Layer 3 Services along with Service SID enclosed in SRv6 Layer 3
Service TLV, Label field for an IPv4 prefix is encoded with 20-bit
label value set as specified by BGP-LU [RFC8277] to the whole or
portion of the "FUNCTION" part of the SRv6 SID when the transposition
encoding scheme is used or otherwise set to NULL. The "FUNCTION"
part of the SRv6 SID now carries the overlay 4PE BGP-LU IPv4 Labeled
prefix identical to MPLS and SR-MPLS.
4PE design with SRv6 data plane MUST also use "IPv6 Explicit Null
label" value 2 defined in [RFC4182] Pipe Diff-Serv Tunneling Model as
defined in [RFC3270].
SRv6 can use Inter-AS options for 4PE procedures which is equivalent
to MPLS using SRv6 Service SID enocded in BGP Prefix SID Attribute as
well as can use SR-TE Policy and Binding SID for candidate path per
[RFC9256] and [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy].
7. 4PE Deployment Options
In this section we display all the possible use cases and highlight
the flexiblity of 6PE capabilities and use of 3 different topmost
labaels that can be signaled
[RFC3032] does not require Penultimate Hop POP (PHP) to be enabled by
default. When PHP is not signaled by the egress PE to the PHP node
using implicit null value 3, an arbitrary label can be utilized for
the topmost label and in that case as PHP is not signaled by the
egress PE node, PHP is not activated and thus the topmost label is
presereved and not popped. Using an arbitarry label eliminates the
need for explicit null value 1 for IPv4 and value 2 for IPv6 to be
imposed as the means to preserve the topmost label for DiffServ PIPE
mode.
* Arbitrary label
* Explicit Null Label for Diffserv PIPE Mode UHP signaling
* Implicit Null label for PHP signaling
In these use cases we dispaly how the IPv4 prefixes tunnled over the
IPv6 LSP can be labed or not labeled
* Labeled IPv4 prefixes
* Unlabeled IPv4 prefixes
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
All deployment options are applicable to intra-as and inter-as
options A, B, C, AB, with Data planes MPLS, SR-MPLS, SRv6.
7.1. Arbitrary topmost with all customer prefixes labeled
Arbitrary topmost label where LERs signal IPv6 topmost LSP with 2
level label stack BOS set [RFC8277] 1/4 service label labeling all
IPv4 customer prefixes
In this scenario all the attached CE prefixes in the global table are
labled and this is similar to IP-VPN per perfix label allocation
Due to the per prefix label allocation in this scenario it is not as
scalable and convergence maybe slower
7.2. Arbitrary topmost with PE to PE LSP
Arbitrary topmost label where LERs signal IPv6 topmost LSP with 2
level label stack, BOS set [RFC8277] 1/4 service label using ingress
to egress PE loopback to loopback LSP single BOS label with all
global table customer prefixes unlabeled.
In this optimized scenario a single ingrees 4PE to 4PE LSP is created
to carry all the CE prefixes
This sceanario is most optimized from a label allocation perspective
from all other scenarios in that only a single service label is
allocated signaled by the service LSP which now is able to carry all
of the global table prefixes populated by the attached CE's as
unlabeled IPv4 customer prefixes. This scenario is similar to IP-VPN
Per-VRF Label allocation
This scenario provides per VRF prefix independent BGP PIC Edge like
convergence with Per VRF prefix independence as when the PE LSP is
withdrawn, all attached CE's and related unlabled prefixes are as
well withdrawn further optimizing the convergence and creating per
VRF independence convergence
MPLS label allocation has a 20 bit label name space and thus allows
for a maximum of 1 Millon labels. This is an MPLS protocol limit
that is hardware and software independent. This scenario provides
tremendous scale to the global internet table carried in the default
VRF table now only allocating a single label for all 1 Million
prefixes in the default VRF
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
7.3. Arbitrary topmost with per CE label table
Arbitrary topmost label where LERs signal IPv6 topmost LSP with 2
level label stack BOS set [RFC8277] 1/4 service label using per CE
label table routing context LSP ingress to egress CE PE-CE interface
PE side interface LSP single BOS label with per CE label table
customer prefixes unlabeled.
This scenario is further optimized by creating a per CE next hop
label table context similar to IP-VPN Per-CE or Per-Next-Hop label
allocation mode where a single label is allocated per CE
In this scenario a single service label is allocated signaled by the
CE interface IP between the ingress 4PE and egreess 4PE creating the
per CE label context service LSP which we are now able to provide per
CE next hop granularity label table context containing the per CE
unlabled customer IPv4 prefixes.
This scenario provides further granularity and per CE independent BGP
PIC Edge like convergence with per CE prefix independence as when the
per CE LSP is withdrawn all the per CE related prefixes are as well
withdrawn further optimizing the convergence and creating per CE
independence granularity with the convergence
7.4. Explicit Null topmost with all customer prefixes labeled
Explicit Null topmost label where LERs signal IPv6 topmost LSP with 2
level label stack BOS set [RFC8277] 1/4 service label labeling all
IPv4 customer prefixes
In this scenario all the attached CE prefixes in the global table are
labled and this is similar to IP-VPN per perfix label allocation
Due to the per prefix label allocation in this scenario it is not as
scalable and convergence maybe slower
7.5. Explicit Null topmost with PE to PE LSP
Explicit Null topmost label where LERs signal IPv6 topmost LSP with 2
level label stack, BOS set [RFC8277] 1/4 service label using ingress
to egress PE loopback to loopback LSP single BOS label with all
global table customer prefixes unlabeled.
In this optimized scenario a single ingrees 4PE to 4PE LSP is created
to carry all the CE prefixes
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
This sceanario is most optimized from a label allocation perspective
from all other scenarios in that only a single service label is
allocated signaled by the service LSP which now is able to carry all
of the global table prefixes populated by the attached CE's as
unlabeled IPv4 customer prefixes. This scenario is similar to IP-VPN
Per-VRF Label allocation
This scenario provides per VRF prefix independent BGP PIC Edge like
convergence with Per VRF prefix independence as when the PE LSP is
withdrawn, all attached CE's and related unlabled prefixes are as
well withdrawn further optimizing the convergence and creating per
VRF independence convergence
MPLS label allocation has a 20 bit label name space and thus allows
for a maximum of 1 Millon labels. This is an MPLS protocol limit
that is hardware and software independent. This scenario provides
tremendous scale to the global internet table carried in the default
VRF table now only allocating a single label for all 1 Million
prefixes in the default VRF
7.6. Explicit Null topmost with per CE label table
Explicit Null topmost label where LERs signal IPv6 topmost LSP with 2
level label stack BOS set [RFC8277] 1/4 service label using per CE
label table routing context LSP ingress to egress CE PE-CE interface
PE side interface LSP single BOS label with per CE label table
customer prefixes unlabeled.
This scenario is further optimized by creating a per CE next hop
label table context similar to IP-VPN Per-CE or Per-Next-Hop label
allocation mode where a single label is allocated per CE
In this scenario a single service label is allocated signaled by the
CE interface IP between the ingress 4PE and egreess 4PE creating the
per CE label context service LSP which we are now able to provide per
CE next hop granularity label table context containing the per CE
unlabled customer IPv4 prefixes.
This scenario provides further granularity and per CE independent BGP
PIC Edge like convergence with per CE prefix independence as when the
per CE LSP is withdrawn all the per CE related prefixes are as well
withdrawn further optimizing the convergence and creating per CE
independence granularity with the convergence
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
7.7. Implicit Null with all customer prefixes labeled
Implicit Null topmost label where LERs signal IPv6 topmost LSP with 2
level label stack BOS set [RFC8277] 1/4 service label labeling all
IPv4 customer prefixes
In this scenario all the attached CE prefixes in the global table are
labled and this is similar to IP-VPN per perfix label allocation
Due to the per prefix label allocation in this scenario it is not as
scalable and convergence maybe slower
7.8. Implicit Null with PE to PE LSP
Implict Null topmost label where LERs signal IPv6 topmost LSP with 2
level label stack, BOS set [RFC8277] 1/4 service label using ingress
to egress PE loopback to loopback LSP single BOS label with all
global table customer prefixes unlabeled.
In this optimized scenario a single ingrees 4PE to 4PE LSP is created
to carry all the CE prefixes
This sceanario is most optimized from a label allocation perspective
from all other scenarios in that only a single service label is
allocated signaled by the service LSP which now is able to carry all
of the global table prefixes populated by the attached CE's as
unlabeled IPv4 customer prefixes. This scenario is similar to IP-VPN
Per-VRF Label allocation
This scenario provides per VRF prefix independent BGP PIC Edge like
convergence with Per VRF prefix independence as when the PE LSP is
withdrawn, all attached CE's and related unlabled prefixes are as
well withdrawn further optimizing the convergence and creating per
VRF independence convergence
MPLS label allocation has a 20 bit label name space and thus allows
for a maximum of 1 Millon labels. This is an MPLS protocol limit
that is hardware and software independent. This scenario provides
tremendous scale to the global internet table carried in the default
VRF table now only allocating a single label for all 1 Million
prefixes in the default VRF
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
7.9. Implicit Null with per CE label table
Implicit Null topmost label where LERs signal IPv6 topmost LSP with 2
level label stack BOS set [RFC8277] 1/4 service label using per CE
label table routing context LSP ingress to egress CE PE-CE interface
PE side interface LSP single BOS label with per CE label table
customer prefixes unlabeled.
This scenario is further optimized by creating a per CE next hop
label table context similar to IP-VPN Per-CE or Per-Next-Hop label
allocation mode where a single label is allocated per CE
In this scenario a single service label is allocated signaled by the
CE interface IP between the ingress 4PE and egreess 4PE creating the
per CE label context service LSP which we are now able to provide per
CE next hop granularity label table context containing the per CE
unlabled customer IPv4 prefixes.
This scenario provides further granularity and per CE independent BGP
PIC Edge like convergence with per CE prefix independence as when the
per CE LSP is withdrawn all the per CE related prefixes are as well
withdrawn further optimizing the convergence and creating per CE
independence granularity with the convergence
7.10. Arbitrary topmost with customer prefixes unlabeled
Arbitrary topmost IPv6 LSP BOS set single level label stack with all
global table customer prefixes 1/1 unlabeled.
This scenario may require some deeper look into the packet Deep
Packet Inspection (DPI) to determine next header inspection for
protocol type so that the packets are not dropped.
7.11. Explicit Null topmost with customer prefixes unlabeled
Explicit null value 2 topmost IPv6 LSP BOS set single level label
stack with all global table customer prefixes 1/1 unlabeled.
This scenario may require some deeper look into the packet Deep
Packet Inspection (DPI) to determine next header inspection for
protocol type so that the packets are not dropped.
8. Crossing Multiple IPv6 Autonomous Systems
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
8.1. Inter-AS 4PE Overview
This section discusses the use case where two IPv4 islands are
connected to different Core Autonomous Systems (ASes)and utilizes 4
PE to connect the two Core ASes together. The Inter-AS connectivity
is established by connecting the PE from one AS to the PE of another
AS, whereby the PE providing global table routing reachability
between ASes, as a 4PE router, is acting as an Autonomous System
Boundary Router (ASBR) to provide the Inter-AS ASBR to ASBR, PE to PE
connectivity between ASN's. In the 4PE design the Inter-AS link
extends the underlay transport LSP so it is now extended between the
ASes. Bottom of Stack S bit is set and using BGP-LU IPv4 BGP Labeled
Unicast all the IPv4 prefixes can now be advertised between the ASes.
Like in the case of multi-AS backbone operations for IPv6 VPNs
described in Section 10 of [RFC4364], there are three inter-as design
options and a fourth option defined in [I-D.mapathak-interas-ab] that
are described below.
8.2. Advertisement of IPv4 prefixes using Inter-AS Style Procedure A
Procedures for 4PE
This 4PE Inter-AS extension involves the advertisement of IPv4
prefixes (non-Labeled) using Inter-AS Style procedure (a).
This design is the equivalent for exchange of IPv4 prefixes to Inter-
AS Style procedure (a) Back to Back CE (no-labeled) Inter-AS path
where each PE acts like a CE (No MPLS) as described in Section 10 of
[RFC4364] for the exchange of VPN-IPv4 prefixes. In the Inter-AS
Style Procedure (a) the Control plane carrying the (non-labeled)
prefixes is together per VRF subinterfaces with the Data Plane
forwarding over the Inter-AS ASBR to ASBR link.
In this design, the Source 4PE routers within the Source AS use IBGP
MP-BGP [RFC4760] carrying IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 Next Hop using IPv6
Next hop encoding [RFC8950] and BGP-LU [RFC8277] to advertise labeled
IPv4 prefixes to a Route Reflector to which it is a client, which
then advertises the labeled IPv4 prefixes to an Autonomous System
Border Router (ASBR) 4PE router which is also a client of the route
reflector, connecting eBGP to another Autonomous System Border Router
(ASBR) 4PE router. The ASBR then uses eBGP to advertise the (non-
labeled) IPv4 prefixes to an ASBR in another AS, which in turn
advertises the IPv4 prefixes to a route reflector within that AS of
which it is a client which then advertises the IPv4 prefixes to all
the 4PE routers in that directly connected AS or as described earlier
in this specification to another ASBR, which in turn repeats the
Inter-AS Procedure (a) herinafter in a case where ASN's are linked
togetther with multiple 4PE AS hops.
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
There may be one, or multiple, ASBR interconnection(s) across any two
ASes. IPv4 MUST to be activated on the Inter-AS ASBR to ASBR (non-
labeled) links and each ASBR 4PE router MUST have at least one IPv4
address on the interface connected to the Inter-AS ASBR to ASBR, PE
to PE link.
No inter-AS LSPs are used are used in this Inter-AS Procedure (a) as
described in Section 10 of [RFC4364]. There is effectively a
separate mesh of LSPs across the 4PE routers within each AS for which
the (non-labeled) IPv4 prefixes are advertised within the AS as BGP-
LU IPv4 labled prefixes carried in the IPv6 signaled transport LSP
mesh.
In this design, the ASBR exchanging IPv4 prefixes MUST peer over
IPv4. The exchange of IPv4 prefixes MUST be carried out as per
[RFC4760].
8.3. Advertisement of labeled IPv4 prefixes Inter-AS Style Procedure B
and C
8.3.1. Advertisement of labeled IPv4 prefixes Inter-AS Style Procedure
B
This 4PE Inter-AS extension involves the advertisement of labeled
IPv4 prefixes over a segmented LSP using Inter-AS Style procedure
(b). In this 4PE extension of Inter-AS Style procedure (b) the 4PE
IPv4 BGP-LU labeled Unicast RIB is maintained on the ASBR.
This design is the equivalent for exchange of IPv4 prefixes to Inter-
AS procedure (b) described in Section 10 of [RFC4364] for the
exchange of VPN-IPv4 prefixes. In the Inter-AS Style Procedure (b)
the Control plane carrying the Service label prefixes is together in
the label stack with the Data Plane forwarding over the Inter-AS ASBR
to ASBR link.
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
In this design, the Source 4PE routers within the Source AS use IBGP
MP-BGP [RFC4760] carrying IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 Next Hop using IPv6
Next hop encoding [RFC8950] and BGP-LU [RFC8277] to advertise labeled
IPv4 prefixes to a Route Reflector to which it is a client, which
then advertises the labeled IPv4 prefixes to an Autonomous System
Border Router (ASBR) 4PE router which is also a client of the route
reflector, connecting eBGP to another Autonomous System Border Router
(ASBR) 4PE router. The ASBR then uses eBGP to advertise the labeled
IPv4 prefixes to an ASBR in another AS, which in turn advertises the
IPv4 prefixes to a route reflector within that AS of which it is a
client which then advertises the IPv4 prefixes to all the 4PE routers
in that directly connected AS or as described earlier in this
specification to another ASBR, which in turn repeats the Inter-AS
Procedure (a) herinafter in a case where ASN's are linked togetther
with multiple 4PE AS hops.
There may be one, or multiple, ASBR interconnection(s) across any two
ASes. The label stack on the ASBR to ASBR, PE to PE link is 2 labels
deep, with the IPv6 tompost transport label IPv6 signaled LSP using
BGP-LU IPv6 Labeled Unicast, IPv6 Address Family Identifier (AFI)
IPv4 (value 2) Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI)(value 4)
and Bottom of Stack BGP-LU IPv4 labeled Unicast Service label, IPv4
Address Family Identifier (AFI) IPv4 (value 1) Subsequent Address
Family Identifier (SAFI)(value 4) Thus IPv4 is not required to be
activated on the Inter-AS ASBR to ASBR PE to PE links as IPv4 is
tunnled through the IPv6 signaled LSP.
This 4PE Inter-AS procedure (b) described in Section 10 of [RFC4364]
requires that there be label switched paths established across ASes.
Hence the corresponding considerations described for procedure (b) in
Section 10 of [RFC4364] apply equally to this design regarding trust
relationship between Service Providers in extending the Inter-AS LSP
between ASBR's.
8.3.2. Multi-hop advertisement of labeled IPv4 prefixes Inter-AS Style
Procedure C
This 4PE Inter-AS extension involves the Route Reflector to Route
Reflector Control Plane Multi-hop eBGP advertisement of labeled IPv4
Unicast prefixes between source and destination ASes, with Inter-AS
link transport underlay IPv6 signaled LSP eBGP advertisement of
labeled Unicast IPv4 prefixes from AS to neighboring AS. In this 4PE
extension of Inter-AS Style procedure (c), the 4PE IPv4 BGP-LU
labeled Unicast RIB is not maintained on the ASBR.
This design is the equivalent for exchange of IPv4 prefixes to Inter-
AS procedure (c) described in Section 10 of [RFC4364] for exchange of
VPN-IPv4 prefixes. In the Inter-AS Style Procedure (c) the Control
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
plane carrying the Service label prefixes eBGP Multihop, Route
Reflector to Route Reflector is separated from the data plane
forwarding over the Inter-AS ASBR to ASBR link which caries the
underlay PE loopbacks advertised using BGP-LU between the Source and
Destination AS over the Inter-AS ASBR-ASBR link. The Core AS
underlay /128 PE loopbacks must be advertised in IPv6 Address Family
Identifier (AFI) IPv4 (value 2) Subsequent Address Family Identifier
(SAFI)(value 4).
In this design, the Source 4PE routers within the Source AS use IBGP
MP-BGP [RFC4760] carrying IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 Next Hop using IPv6
Next hop encoding [RFC8950] and BGP-LU [RFC8277] to advertise the
control plane labeled IPv4 prefixes to a Route Reflector to which it
is a client, which then advertises the labeled IPv4 Unicast prefixes
over an eBGP Multihop Inter-AS peering to the route reflector in the
Destination AS. The ASBR in the Source AS over the Inter-AS ASBR to
ASBR link then uses eBGP to advertise the core underlay Labeled
Unicast IPv6 PE loopabcks prefixes in the underlay to an ASBR in
Destination AS, which in turn advertises the IPv6 PE loopabcks
prefixes to a route reflector within the Destination AS of which it
is a client which then advertises the PE loopabcks IPv6 prefixes to
all the PE routers within the AS to establish an end to end LSP from
ingress PE in the Source AS to egress PE in the Destination AS.
IPv4 need not be activated on the Inter-AS ASBR to ASBR, PE to PE
links.
The considerations described for procedure (c) in Section 10 of
[RFC4364] with respect to possible use of multi-hop eBGP connections
via route-reflectors in different ASes, as well as with respect to
the use of a third label in case the IPv6 /128 prefixes for the PE
routers are NOT made known to the P routers, apply equally to this
design for IPv4 underlay transport.
There may be one, or multiple, ASBR interconnection(s) across any two
ASes. The label stack on the ASBR to ASBR, PE to PE link is 2 labels
deep, with the IPv6 tompost transport label IPv6 signaled LSP using
BGP-LU IPv6 Labeled Unicast, IPv6 Address Family Identifier (AFI)
IPv4 (value 2) Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI)(value 4)
and the route reflector to route reflector Multihop eBGP Peering
next-hop-unchanged forwarding plane from ingress PE to egress PE
loopback with unchanged next-hop is forwarded over the Inter-AS ASBR
to ASBR PE-PE link, Bottom of Stack BGP-LU IPv4 labeled Unicast
Service label, IPv4 Address Family Identifier (AFI) IPv4 (value 1)
Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI)(value 4) Thus IPv4 is not
required to be activated on the Inter-AS ASBR to ASBR PE to PE links
as IPv4 is tunnled through the IPv6 signaled LSP.
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
This 4PE design for procedure (c) in Section 10 of [RFC4364] requires
that there be IPv6 label switched paths established across the ASes
leading from a packet's ingress 4PE router to its egress 4PE router.
Hence the considerations described for procedure (c) in Section 10 of
[RFC4364], with respect to LSPs spanning multiple ASes, apply equally
to this design for IPv4.
Note that the 4PE Inter-AS extension for procedure (c) in Section 10
of [RFC4364] that the exchange of IPv4 prefixes control plane
function can only start after BGP has created IPv6 end to end LSP has
established between the ASes.
9. RFC 8950 Applicability to 4PE
The new MP-BGP extensions defined in [RFC8950] is used to support
IPV4 islands over an IPv6 MPLS LDPv6 or SRv6 backbone. In this
scenario the PE routers would use BGP Labeled unicast address family
(BGP-LU) to advertise BGP with label binding and receive Labeled IPv4
NLRI in the MP_REACH_NLRI along with an IPv6 Next Hop from the Route
Reflector (RR).
MP-BGP Reach Pseudo code:
If ((Update AFI == IPv4)
and (Length of next hop == 16 Bytes || 32 Bytes))
{
This is an IPv4 route, but
with an IPv6 next hop;
}
The MP_REACH_NLRI is encoded with:
* AFI = 1
* SAFI = 4
* Length of Next Hop Network Address = 16 (or 32)
* Network Address of Next Hop = IPv6 address of Next Hop whose RD is
set to zero
* NLRI = IPv4-VPN prefixes
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
During BGP Capability Advertisement, the PE routers would include the
following fields in the Capabilities Optional Parameter:
* Capability Code set to "Extended Next Hop Encoding"
* Capability Value containing <NLRI AFI=1, NLRI SAFI=1, Nexthop
AFI=2>
10. Implementations
4PE has been implemented by the following vendors
10.1. Cisco 4PE Implementation
4PE Context
Topmost label signaled by egress PE is implicit null by default for
PHP mode for IPv6 LSP
Topmost label signaled by egress PE can be configured for explicit
null for IPv6 LSP so that EXP Bits Diffserv QOS Pipe mode model
IPv4 prefixes tunneled over IPv6 LSP can be labeled or unlabeled
10.2. Juniper 4PE Implementation
4PE Context
Topmost label signaled by egress PE is implicit null by default PHP
mode for IPv6 LSP
Topmost label signaled by egress PE can be configured for explicit
null for IPv6 LSP so that EXP Bits Diffserv QOS Pipe mode model
IPv4 prefixes tunneled over IPv6 LSP can be labeled or unlabeled
10.3. Nokia 4PE Implementation
4PE Context
Topmost label signaled by egress PE is arbitrary label by default for
IPv6 LSP
Topmost label signaled by egress PE can be configued for implicit
null PHP mode for IPv6 LSP
Topmost label signaled by egress PE can be configured for explicit
null for IPv6 LSP so that EXP Bits Diffserv QOS Pipe mode model
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
IPv4 prefixes tunneled over IPv6 LSP can be labeled or unlabeled
10.4. Huawei 4PE Implementation
4PE Context
Topmost label signaled by egress PE is implicit null by default PHP
mode for IPv6 LSP
Topmost label signaled by egress PE can be configured for explicit
null for IPv6 LSP so that EXP Bits Diffserv QOS Pipe mode model
IPv4 prefixes tunneled over IPv6 LSP can be labeled or unlabeled
11. IANA Considerations
There are not any IANA considerations.
12. Security Considerations
No new extensions are defined in this document. As such, no new
security issues are raised beyond those that already exist in BGP-4
and use of MP-BGP for IPv6.
The security features of BGP and corresponding security policy
defined in the ISP domain are applicable.
For the inter-AS distribution of IPv6 prefixes according to case (a)
of Section 4 of this document, no new security issues are raised
beyond those that already exist in the use of eBGP for IPv6
[RFC2545].
13. Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Ketan Talaulikar, Robert Raszuk, Igor Malyushkin,
Linda Dunbar, Huaimo Chen, Dikshit Saumya for your thoughtful reviews
and comments.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext]
Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Mattes, P., and
D. Jain, "Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions for BGP
SR Policy", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-01, 26 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
sr-segtypes-ext-01>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Mattes, P., and
D. Jain, "Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-segment-
routing-te-policy-25, 26 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
segment-routing-te-policy-25>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2545] Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol
Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2545, March 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2545>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
[RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and
B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3036, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3036>.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, DOI 10.17487/RFC3107, May 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3107>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S.,
Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen,
"Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of
Differentiated Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270,
May 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC4029] Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P.
Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into
ISP Networks", RFC 4029, DOI 10.17487/RFC4029, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4029>.
[RFC4182] Rosen, E., "Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS
Explicit NULL", RFC 4182, DOI 10.17487/RFC4182, September
2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4182>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC7938] Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., and J. Mitchell, Ed., "Use of
BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers", RFC 7938,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7938, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7938>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8950] Litkowski, S., Agrawal, S., Ananthamurthy, K., and K.
Patel, "Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability
Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop", RFC 8950,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8950, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8950>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
[RFC9252] Dawra, G., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Raszuk, R., Decraene,
B., Zhuang, S., and J. Rabadan, "BGP Overlay Services
Based on Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)", RFC 9252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9252, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9252>.
[RFC9256] Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.
[RFC9313] Lencse, G., Palet Martinez, J., Howard, L., Patterson, R.,
and I. Farrer, "Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition
Technologies for IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS)", RFC 9313,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9313, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9313>.
14.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-dynamic-cap]
Chen, E. and S. R. Sangli, "Dynamic Capability for BGP-4",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-
cap-16, 21 October 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
dynamic-cap-16>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
[I-D.mapathak-interas-ab]
Pathak, M., Patel, K., and A. Sreekantiah, "Inter-AS
Option D for BGP/MPLS IP VPN", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-mapathak-interas-ab-02, 28 May 2015,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mapathak-
interas-ab-02>.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4659>.
[RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684,
November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4684>.
[RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur,
"Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6
Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4798, February 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4798>.
[RFC4925] Li, X., Ed., Dawkins, S., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and A.
Durand, Ed., "Softwire Problem Statement", RFC 4925,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4925, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4925>.
[RFC5549] Le Faucheur, F. and E. Rosen, "Advertising IPv4 Network
Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop",
RFC 5549, DOI 10.17487/RFC5549, May 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5549>.
[RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh
Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5565>.
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
"Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6074, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6074>.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Connecting IPv4 Islands over IPv6 Core ( October 2023
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses
Gyan Mishra
Verizon Inc.
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
Jeff Tantsura
Microsoft, Inc.
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Mankamana Mishra
Cisco Systems
821 Alder Drive,
MILPITAS
Email: mankamis@cisco.com
Sudha Madhavi
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Email: smadhavi@juniper.net
Adam Simpson
Nokia
Email: adam.1.simpson@nokia.com
Shuanglong Chen
Huawei Technologies
Email: chenshuanglong@huawei.com
Mishra, et al. Expires 24 April 2024 [Page 31]