Skip to main content

4over6 Transit Solution Using IP Encapsulation and MP-BGP Extensions
RFC 5747

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
04 (System) Notify list changed from chmetz@cisco.com, xing@cernet.edu.cn, jianping@cernet.edu.cn, xmw@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn, cy@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn, draft-wu-softwire-4over6@ietf.org, rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org to rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
2010-03-10
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-10
04 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5747' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-10
04 (System) RFC published
2010-03-02
04 Cindy Morgan
2010-01-15
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-12-21
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-12-21
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-12-21
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-12-18
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-12-17
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-12-07
04 (System) New version available: draft-wu-softwire-4over6-04.txt
2009-12-07
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-12-07
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-12-07
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-12-04
04 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-12-03
2009-12-03
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-12-03
04 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel
2009-12-03
04 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I sent my Discuss issue in an email to the RFC Editor as follows...

Hi,

During IESG review of this draft I raised …
[Ballot comment]
I sent my Discuss issue in an email to the RFC Editor as follows...

Hi,

During IESG review of this draft I raised two issues.

1. Experimental or Informational?

Normally an Experimental I-D would describe an experiment that is to be run.
In that case, it would include a description of the scope of the experiment,
how the experiment will be measured, the way that the success of the
experiment will be judged, and the proposed next steps depending on the
success or failure of the experiment.

In this case, however, it looks like the experiment has already been run. If
this is a record of an experiment that is now
concluded, I think that the I-D should be classed as Informational. If the
experiment is intended to continue, I think a section should be added to
describe the on-going experiment.

2. Definition of protocol extensions?

Section 1 says...

  This document defines
  extensions to MP-BGP employed to communicate tunnel end-point
  information and establish 4over6 tunnels between dual-stack Provider
  Edge (PE) routers positioned at the edge of the IPv6 backbone
  network.

This is not consistent with the an experiment (or with Experimental status).
The wording used in the Abstract is subtly different, and better. Would it
work to replace this text with:

  This document describes experimental
  extensions to MP-BGP employed to communicate tunnel end-point
  information and establish 4over6 tunnels between dual-stack Provider
  Edge (PE) routers positioned at the edge of the IPv6 backbone
  network.
2009-12-03
04 Adrian Farrel [Ballot discuss]
2009-12-03
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-12-02
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-12-02
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
Contains several unused references.
2009-12-02
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot comment]
Contains several unused references.
2009-12-02
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-12-02
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-12-02
04 Ron Bonica [Ballot comment]
Since this document describes something that has already been done, its status should probably be INFORMATIONAL, not EXPERIMENTAL.
2009-12-02
04 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-12-01
04 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-12-01
04 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
I welcome the fact that this document has been brought forward.

Normally an Experimental I-D would describe an experiment that is to be …
[Ballot discuss]
I welcome the fact that this document has been brought forward.

Normally an Experimental I-D would describe an experiment that is to be
run. In that case, it would include a description of the scope of the
experiment, how the experiment will be measured, the way that the
success of the experiment will be judged, and the proposed next steps                   
depending on the success or failure of the experiment.

In this case, however, it looks like you have already run the
experiment. If this is a record of your experiment that is now
concluded, I think that you should class the I-D as Informational. If
the experiment is intended to continue, I think you should add a
seciton to describe the on-going experiment.

---

Section 1 says...

  This document defines
  extensions to MP-BGP employed to communicate tunnel end-point
  information and establish 4over6 tunnels between dual-stack Provider
  Edge (PE) routers positioned at the edge of the IPv6 backbone
  network.

This is not consistent with the Experimental status. The wording used
in the Abstract is subtly different, and better. Would it work to
replace this text with:

  This document describes experimental
  extensions to MP-BGP employed to communicate tunnel end-point
  information and establish 4over6 tunnels between dual-stack Provider
  Edge (PE) routers positioned at the edge of the IPv6 backbone
  network.
2009-12-01
04 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-12-01
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-11-24
04 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI)"
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace

OLD:
Value …
IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
changes in the "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI)"
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace

OLD:
Value Description Reference
----- ----------------
67 BGP 4over6 SAFI [Cui]

NEW:
Value Description
----- ----------------
67 BGP 4over6 SAFI [RFC-wu-softwire-4over6-03]
2009-11-17
04 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2009-11-17
04 Ralph Droms Ballot has been issued by Ralph Droms
2009-11-17
04 Ralph Droms Created "Approve" ballot
2009-11-17
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-11-17
04 (System) Last call text was added
2009-11-17
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-11-17
04 Ralph Droms Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-12-03 by Ralph Droms
2009-11-17
04 Ralph Droms State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation by Ralph Droms
2009-11-17
04 Ralph Droms State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ralph Droms
2009-11-17
04 Ralph Droms Note field has been cleared by Ralph Droms
2009-10-22
04 Cindy Morgan Area acronymn has been changed to int from gen
2009-10-22
04 Cindy Morgan Responsible AD has been changed to Ralph Droms from Russ Housley
2009-10-19
04 Cindy Morgan
This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as an
Experimental Independent Submission: draft-wu-softwire-4over6-03.txt.

Please let us know if this document conflicts …
This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as an
Experimental Independent Submission: draft-wu-softwire-4over6-03.txt.

Please let us know if this document conflicts with the IETF standards
process or other work being done in the IETF community.

Five week timeout expires on 23 November 2009.
Note that we have added an extra week because of the upcoming IETF
proceedings.


4over6 Transit Solution using IP Encapsulation and MP-BGP Extensions

The emerging and growing deployment of IPv6 networks will introduce
cases where connectivity with IPv4 networks crossing IPv6 transit
backbones is desired. This document describes a mechanism for
automatic discovery and creation of IPv4 over IPv6 tunnels via
extensions to multi- protocol BGP. It is targeted at connecting
islands of IPv4 networks across an IPv6-only backbone without the
need for a manually configured overlay of tunnels. The mechanisms
described in this document have been implemented, tested and
deployed on the large research IPv6 network in China.
2009-10-19
04 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2009-09-12
03 (System) New version available: draft-wu-softwire-4over6-03.txt
2009-04-14
02 (System) New version available: draft-wu-softwire-4over6-02.txt
2006-09-10
01 (System) New version available: draft-wu-softwire-4over6-01.txt
2006-02-23
00 (System) New version available: draft-wu-softwire-4over6-00.txt