Skip to main content

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