Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-Only MPLS Networks
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: RFC Editor <email@example.com>, mpls mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, mpls chair <email@example.com> Subject: Document Action: 'Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-only MPLS Networks' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-04.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-only MPLS Networks' (draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-04.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Alia Atlas. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap/
Technical Summary This document reviews the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) protocol suite in the context of IPv6 and identifies gaps that must be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols and applications to be used with IPv6-only networks. This document is intended to focus on gaps in the standards defining the MPLS suite, and not to highlight particular vendor implementations (or lack thereof) in the context of IPv6-only MPLS functionality. In the data plane, MPLS fully supports IPv6 and MPLS labeled packets can be carried over IPv6 packets in a variety of encapsulations. However, support for IPv6 among MPLS control plane protocols, MPLS applications, MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM), and MIB modules is mixed, with some protocols having major gaps. For most major gaps work is in progress to upgrade the relevant protocols. Working Group Summary There is a good support in the working group for this draft, and it is needed to figure out the gaps that needs to be filled to run MPLS in a IPv6 only network; the draft point to several issues that needs to be addressed. There were comments during wglc that has been addressed. This document were one of the first documents that did go through the new Quality Assurance(QA) that is started for Rtg Area documents. This review was done in parallel with the wglc. The QA review concluded that this is a very useful document of good quality. There were a set of technical and editorial comments that were addressed in the process to resolve the wglc comments. The QA also resulted in a comment that said that this document is a gap analysis and as such gives a description at one point in time, and ask if this should be published as a living document instead. This was discussed but the working group and the working group chairs called consensus in a mail to the working group. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg12752.html Saying: "The working group chairs find that the working group have consensus to move ahead with the document (version -02) as it has been updated after the wglc and reviews. The value in having the document publish by far outweigh not having it published. The benefits in moving the reference to an appendix (or removing them) is not comparable to have easily at hand when reading the document." That said the wg chairs are agreeable to, as soon as the RFC is published start following the process of filling the MPLS/IPv6 gaps, we believe that this eventually cover more than the MPLS specification and that it is a job that will be relevant for the entire rtg area. Document Quality This is an informational and a gap analysis document, no implementations are expected. On the other hand there are already activities and drafts looks to filling the gaps identified in the document. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Loa Andersson is the Document Shepherd. Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director.