BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN
RFC 4659
Discuss
Yes
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
Lars Eggert
(Allison Mankin)
(Brian Carpenter)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Russ Housley)
(Sam Hartman)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2005-09-29)
Unknown
Two major points: 1) Can we please have a proper implementation report for this spec? 2) The document does not define a mandatory to implement encapsulation method. All methods mentioned after MUST's in section 4 are conditional on statements like "when tunneling is done", and "systems that implement". In other words, interop is not guaranteed. I would imagine that the spec would want to mandate at least the MPLS/LDP one.
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-09-28)
Unknown
References and Citations need serious checking:
!! Missing Reference for citation: [BGP-EXTCOM]
P008 L024: [BGP-EXTCOM].
!! Missing citation for Normative reference:
P015 L018: [BGP-EXTCOMM] Ramachandra, Tappan, Rekhter,
"BGP Extended Communities
!! Missing Reference for citation: [BGP]
P002 L051: Protocol", [BGP, BGP-MP]) is then used by the
Service Provider to
!! Missing Reference for citation: [LABEL]
P012 L009: carried out as per [MP-BGP-v6] and [LABEL].
When the VPN-IPv6 traffic
!! Missing Reference for citation: [LDP]
P009 L044: using any label distribution technique (LDP[LDP],
RSVP-TE [RSVP-TE],
P009 L047: technology, all such systems MUST support LDP [LDP].
!! Missing Reference for citation: [MP-BGP-v6]
P011 L034: IPv6 routes MUST be carried out as per [MP-BGP-v6].
This method does
P012 L009: carried out as per [MP-BGP-v6] and [LABEL].
When the VPN-IPv6 traffic
!! Missing Reference for citation: [MP-BGP]
P005 L043: The PE routers exchange, via MP-BGP [MP-BGP], reachability
!! Missing citation for Normative reference:
P015 L027: [MPLS-ARCH] Rosen, Viswanathan, and Callon, "Multiprotocol Label
!! Missing citation for Normative reference:
P015 L033: [MPLS-ENCAPS] Rosen, Rekhter, Tappan, Farinacci,
Fedorkow, Li, and
!! Missing citation for Normative reference:
P015 L039: [MPLS-LDP] Andersson, Doolan, Feldman, Fredette, Thomas, "LDP
!! Missing citation for Informative reference:
P016 L015: [SCOPE-ARCH] Deering, S., et al., "IPv6 Scoped Address
Architecture",
!! Missing citation for Informative reference:
P016 L012: [TRANS] R. Gilligan, E. Nordmark, "Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-09-28)
Unknown
Note: -04 was Last Called in idr in February, satisfying our desires for BGP changes to be checked by idr. The changes from -04 to -07 (other than the ones asked for in the idr last call) are minor and don't warrant another idr Last Call.
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-09-28)
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-09-28)
Unknown
There probably shouldn't be a citation in the abstract.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-09-26)
Unknown
The draft appears to recommend that a site use Unique Local addresses in preference to Global Unicast addresses, through its quoting of the unique local draft's text here: "They have the additional property that they will continue to work if the individual sites are renumbered or merged." Personally, I believe this would be contrary to good practice if the site were not already using Unique Local addresses, since it increases the administrative and routing burden. I do not ask the authors to share this view, but I do note that more direct recommendation one way or the other would be clearer.