Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)
RFC 4798

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Bill Fenner) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2006-08-29 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
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)

(Ted Hardie) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2006-08-28 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  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.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Comment (2006-08-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Ignore my- previous  comment - somehow got put on wrong document :-)

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2006-08-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
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.

(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-09-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
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.

Magnus Westerlund No Objection