Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16
RFC7349 is a nice summary of everything we¹re still missing wrt MPLS and is relatively recent so should be close to up to date. In addition to the MPLS shortcomings, it also touches on recent IGP updates:
3.2.3.1. Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
RFC 3630 [RFC3630] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering capabilities to OSPF Version 2. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in RFC 5329 [RFC5329] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks in OSPF Version 3.
RFC 5305 [RFC5305] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering capabilities to IS-IS. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in RFC 6119 [RFC6119] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks.
Gap: None.
When you talk to your vendor, ask what code will support these RFC¹s. -Josh
On 2/21/15, 6:00 AM, "nanog-request@nanog.org" <nanog-request@nanog.org> wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:00:07 -0500 From: Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com> To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, Juniper-Nsp <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>, "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 Message-ID: <CAE_ug16FGyQXsTuyP9o+uTDhdNpGBgFE6H5EbU4TDHb73Vm1UQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget...
(Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is the last piece for me.)
Is there 4PE implementation to drive IPv4 edges, shouldn't be hard to accept IPv6 next-hop in BGP LU, but probably does not work out-of-the-box? Isn't Segment Routing implementation day1 IPV4+IPV6 in XR?
-- ++ytti
I would gladly take OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS+SR over LDP, but I'm seeing that is not all that is needed.
I also need some flavor of L2VPN (eVPN) and L3VPN (VPNv4/VPNv6) working over IPv6.
IPv6 control plane this decade may yet be optimistic.
-- Tim:>
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
On 21/02/2015 14:28, Rogers, Josh wrote:
RFC7349 is a nice summary of everything we¹re still missing wrt MPLS and is relatively recent so should be close to up to date. In addition to the MPLS shortcomings, it also touches on recent IGP updates:
rfc7439, not 7349: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439 Nick
3.2.3.1. Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
RFC 3630 [RFC3630] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering capabilities to OSPF Version 2. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in RFC 5329 [RFC5329] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks in OSPF Version 3.
RFC 5305 [RFC5305] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering capabilities to IS-IS. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in RFC 6119 [RFC6119] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks.
Gap: None.
When you talk to your vendor, ask what code will support these RFC¹s.
-Josh
On 2/21/15, 6:00 AM, "nanog-request@nanog.org" <nanog-request@nanog.org> wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:00:07 -0500 From: Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com> To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, Juniper-Nsp <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>, "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 Message-ID: <CAE_ug16FGyQXsTuyP9o+uTDhdNpGBgFE6H5EbU4TDHb73Vm1UQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget...
(Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is the last piece for me.)
Is there 4PE implementation to drive IPv4 edges, shouldn't be hard to accept IPv6 next-hop in BGP LU, but probably does not work out-of-the-box? Isn't Segment Routing implementation day1 IPV4+IPV6 in XR?
-- ++ytti
I would gladly take OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS+SR over LDP, but I'm seeing that is not all that is needed.
I also need some flavor of L2VPN (eVPN) and L3VPN (VPNv4/VPNv6) working over IPv6.
IPv6 control plane this decade may yet be optimistic.
-- Tim:>
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
FWIW, draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 [1] is now at revision 17. But it is complete and totally stable. It was approved for publication as an RFC on March 4th and the document is currently with the RFC Editor in the "final stages of sausage grinding" I would predict that you will have an RFC number to reference within about 4 weeks from now. Adrian [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6/
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: 22 February 2015 16:21 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16
On 21/02/2015 14:28, Rogers, Josh wrote:
RFC7349 is a nice summary of everything we¹re still missing wrt MPLS and is relatively recent so should be close to up to date. In addition to the MPLS shortcomings, it also touches on recent IGP updates:
rfc7439, not 7349:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439
Nick
3.2.3.1. Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
RFC 3630 [RFC3630] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering capabilities to OSPF Version 2. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in RFC 5329 [RFC5329] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks in OSPF Version 3.
RFC 5305 [RFC5305] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering capabilities to IS-IS. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in RFC 6119 [RFC6119] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks.
Gap: None.
When you talk to your vendor, ask what code will support these RFC¹s.
-Josh
On 2/21/15, 6:00 AM, "nanog-request@nanog.org" <nanog-
wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:00:07 -0500 From: Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com> To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, Juniper-Nsp <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>, "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 Message-ID:
<CAE_ug16FGyQXsTuyP9o+uTDhdNpGBgFE6H5EbU4TDHb73Vm1UQ@mail.gmail. com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget...
(Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is the last piece for me.)
Is there 4PE implementation to drive IPv4 edges, shouldn't be hard to accept IPv6 next-hop in BGP LU, but probably does not work out-of-the-box? Isn't Segment Routing implementation day1 IPV4+IPV6 in XR?
-- ++ytti
I would gladly take OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS+SR over LDP, but I'm seeing that is not all that is needed.
I also need some flavor of L2VPN (eVPN) and L3VPN (VPNv4/VPNv6) working over IPv6.
IPv6 control plane this decade may yet be optimistic.
-- Tim:>
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
request@nanog.org> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E- mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
participants (3)
-
Adrian Farrel -
Nick Hilliard -
Rogers, Josh