Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)
RFC 4798
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14 |
07 | (System) | Notify list changed from idr-chairs@ietf.org, jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel.be, dirk@onesparrow.com, stuart.prevost@bt.com, flefauch@cisco.com to (None) |
2012-08-22 |
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Brian Carpenter |
2007-07-10 |
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement about IPR Claimed in RFC 4798 | |
2007-02-15 |
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
2007-02-15 |
07 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4798' added by Amy Vezza |
2007-02-08 |
07 | (System) | RFC published |
2007-02-01 |
07 | Bill Fenner | From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: AUTH48 [sg]: RFC 4798 <draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-07.txt> NOW AVAILABLE Date: Thu, Feb 1 14:45:19 |
2006-12-14 |
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2006-12-13 |
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2006-12-13 |
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2006-12-12 |
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup by Bill Fenner |
2006-12-12 |
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2006-12-12 |
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-07.txt |
2006-11-09 |
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised ID Needed from Approved-announcement sent by Bill Fenner |
2006-11-09 |
07 | Bill Fenner | I erred in moving this forward - I didn't realize that there were some pending changes based on the GEN-ART review, and on the changes … I erred in moving this forward - I didn't realize that there were some pending changes based on the GEN-ART review, and on the changes in 2858bis. I will send a withdrawl message to the RFC Editor and wait for the revision from the authors. |
2006-11-08 |
07 | (System) | Request for Early review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. |
2006-11-08 |
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2006-11-08 |
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2006-11-08 |
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2006-09-20 |
07 | Bill Fenner | oops, my font was too small and I misread the state name. I just meant to remove the substate. |
2006-09-20 |
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement sent by Bill Fenner |
2006-09-20 |
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Bill Fenner |
2006-09-14 |
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2006-09-14 |
07 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Amy Vezza |
2006-09-14 |
07 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by IESG Secretary |
2006-09-14 |
07 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2006-09-14 |
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot comment] I think that this document exposes a problem in BGP, specifically the lack of a clear specification of how the NLRI and Next-Hop … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2006-09-14 |
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mark Townsley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Mark Townsley |
2006-09-14 |
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2006-09-14 |
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2006-09-13 |
07 | (System) | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by system |
2006-09-12 |
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Ted Hardie |
2006-09-01 |
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-08-31 |
2006-08-31 |
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2006-08-31 |
07 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Mark Townsley |
2006-08-31 |
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot discuss] I really don't want to hold this document up, but I've noticed that the justification for this mechanism in the reference [ISPSCEN] (now … [Ballot discuss] I really don't want to hold this document up, but I've noticed that the justification for this mechanism in the reference [ISPSCEN] (now RFC 4029) is very weak. To fill this gap, one of the authors suggested this as a new second paragraph in the Introduction: The 6PE approach is required in addition to the use of standard tunnels, as it provides a solution for an MPLS environment where all tunnels are established dynamically, or for an environment where the effort to configure and maintain explicitly configured tunnels is not acceptable. |
2006-08-31 |
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Brian Carpenter |
2006-08-31 |
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2006-08-31 |
07 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Kessens |
2006-08-30 |
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Bill Fenner |
2006-08-30 |
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to Undefined from No Objection by Ted Hardie |
2006-08-30 |
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ted Hardie |
2006-08-30 |
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot comment] Ignore my- previous comment - somehow got put on wrong document :-) |
2006-08-30 |
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2006-08-30 |
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot comment] I think this should be informational not BCP. |
2006-08-30 |
07 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2006-08-30 |
07 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] There is no referece in this document to manageability or operational considerations. It would be useful to mention or refer to other documents … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2006-08-29 |
07 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2006-08-29 |
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2006-08-29 |
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot comment] Section 4., paragraph 18: > ASBRs in any transit ASes will also have > to use EBGP to pass along the … [Ballot comment] 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) |
2006-08-28 |
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] The last sentence in Section 2 says: > > As required by BGP specification, PE routers form a full peering … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2006-08-28 |
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2006-08-28 |
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bill Fenner has been changed to Yes from Undefined by Bill Fenner |
2006-08-24 |
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bill Fenner |
2006-08-24 |
07 | Bill Fenner | Ballot has been issued by Bill Fenner |
2006-08-24 |
07 | Bill Fenner | Created "Approve" ballot |
2006-08-23 |
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2006-08-09 |
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2006-08-09 |
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2006-08-07 |
07 | Bill Fenner | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-08-31 by Bill Fenner |
2006-08-07 |
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Bill Fenner |
2006-08-07 |
07 | Bill Fenner | Last Call was requested by Bill Fenner |
2006-06-12 |
07 | Bill Fenner | [Note]: 'Despite its filename, this is an *IDR* working group draft.' added by Bill Fenner |
2006-06-12 |
07 | Bill Fenner | Oops, it's better to wait for the implementation report to be posted on the IETF web site before asking for the Last Call. |
2006-06-12 |
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Last Call Requested by Bill Fenner |
2006-06-12 |
07 | Bill Fenner | Last Call was requested by Bill Fenner |
2006-06-12 |
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Bill Fenner |
2006-06-12 |
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2006-06-12 |
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2006-06-12 |
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2006-06-12 |
07 | Bill Fenner | Notes: [VPN] is now RFC 4364 [EXP-NULL] is now RFC 4182 [ISPSCEN] is now RFC 4029 No references to [MP-BGP] |
2006-06-12 |
07 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Bill Fenner |
2006-06-12 |
07 | Bill Fenner | State Change Notice email list have been change to idr-chairs@tools.ietf.org, jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel.be, dirk@onesparrow.com, stuart.prevost@bt.com, flefauch@cisco.com from jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel.be |
2006-03-22 |
07 | Bill Fenner | Writeup from Yakov: 1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is … Writeup from Yakov: 1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes, the chair believes that this ID is ready for publication. 2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document passed the IDR WG Last Call, although we received no comments on the document during the Last Call. I am not aware whether it was reviewed by the v6ops WG. If the document has not been reviewed by the v6ops WG, then it may be useful to arrange such a review. 3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? No, other than review from the v6ops WG. 4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. I have no concerns with this document. 5. How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There were no objections to this document within the IDR WG during the IDR WG Last Call. 6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. No threat of an appeal. 7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID Checklist items ? Yes. 8. Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) The document is split into normative and informative references. There are no normative references to IDs. 9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard, Informational?) Proposed Standard. 10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections: [placed in writeup] |
2006-03-22 |
07 | Bill Fenner | Draft Added by Bill Fenner in state Publication Requested |
2006-01-18 |
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-06.txt |
2005-05-03 |
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-05.txt |
2004-10-28 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-04.txt |
2004-06-24 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt |
2004-03-17 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-02.txt |
2003-12-22 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-01.txt |
2002-10-31 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-00.txt |