Skip to main content

Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)
RFC 4798

Yes

(Bill Fenner)

No Objection

(Brian Carpenter)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ross Callon)
(Sam Hartman)
(Ted Hardie)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

Comment (2006-08-29)
Section 4., paragraph 18:
>    ASBRs in any transit ASes will also have
>    to use EBGP to pass along the labled IPv4 /32 routes.

  Nit: s/labled/labeled/


Section 5., paragraph 14:
>    [MP-BGP]     T. Bates, R. Chandra, D. Katz, Y. Rekhter, "Multiproto-
>                 col Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858.

  Unused Reference: 'MP-BGP' is defined on line 416, but not referenced
  (and it is normative)

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2006-08-30)
Ignore my- previous  comment - somehow got put on wrong document :-)

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2006-08-30)
There is no referece in this document to manageability or operational considerations. It would be useful to mention or refer to other documents that show how the methods of interconnection of IPv6 islands over an IPv4 MPLS cloud described in the documents will be configured and deployed, if there are any specific status or manitoring information that need to be watched by a network operator, and if the deployment of this technology has any impact on the existing MPLS network.

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2006-09-14)
I think that this document exposes a problem in BGP, specifically the lack of a clear specification of how the NLRI and Next-Hop are defined. This document assumes that the two MUST be of the same address family, requiring the V4 NLRI address to be mapped into a V6 address in the process. Thus, implementations are forced to use the length of the NLRI (32 or 128 bits) and inspection of portions of the v6 address to determine if the address is actually a v4 NH or v6 NH. Despite being ugly, this type of encoding cannot be easily extended to support v4/v6 combinations, and is incompatible with v6 over a BGP/MPLS L3VPN. 

I understand that this mechanism is widely implemented and deployed, thus it is probably far too late to make a substantial change without causing more harm than good (which is why this isn't a DISCUSS). I think IDR is going to have to address this with some of the upcoming softwires work.

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2006-08-28)
  The last sentence in Section 2 says:
  >
  > As required by BGP specification, PE routers form a full peering
  > mesh unless Route Reflectors are used.
  >
  Please refer to a specific document.

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection ()