70 likes | 173 Views
<draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt> Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE). J. De Clerq, Alcatel D. Ooms S. Prevost, BT F. Le Faucheur, Cisco Systems. v6. v6. v4. P. P. v6. v6. P. P. v4. IPv6 Provider Edge Router (6PE): Problem Statement.
E N D
<draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt>Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE) J. De Clerq, Alcatel D. Ooms S. Prevost, BT F. Le Faucheur, Cisco Systems draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt
v6 v6 v4 P P v6 v6 P P v4 IPv6 Provider Edge Router (6PE):Problem Statement 2001:0420:: 2001:0620:: 145.95.0.0 2001:0421:: 6PE 6PE 2001:0621:: CE 6PE 6PE IPv4 MPLS 192.76.10.0 CE - Provide Global IPv6 reachability - over an IPv6-unaware IPv4 MPLS core draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt
MP-iBGP sessions v6 v6 v4 P P v6 v6 P P IPv6 Provider Edge Router (6PE):Solution 2001:0420:: 2001:0620:: 145.95.0.0 2001:0421:: 6PE 6PE Dual Stack IPv4-IPv6 routers Dual Stack IPv4-IPv6 routers 2001:0621:: CE 6PE 6PE IPv4 MPLS • - use existing protocol elements in a specific combination to achieve interoperability • - use same architecture as 2547 and IPv6 VPN I-D • o MP-BGP reachability information advertised Edge-to-Edge • o IPv4 MPLS tunnelling through the core • 6PE advertises IPv6 NLRI with IPv4 Next Hop encoded as an IPv4-mapped IPv6 • address draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt
History • This has been in IETF for a long time • Developed under ngtrans (WG document) • Moved to v6ops • Just moved to Routing Area draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt
v6ops and AD Consensus “In draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-analysis-03.txt we (v6ops) found that we need draft-ooms-v6ops bgp-tunnel-03.txt ("6PE/BGP-tunnel") to provide easier transition for IPv4 MPLS networks. Let me try to summarize the consensus: 1. Problem: to deploy IPv6 over an MPLS network, you'll have to either use manually configured tunnels, deploy IPv6 natively, or upgrade the whole signalling plane to support IPv6. The MPLS operators haven't been enthusiastic about the last option, and in many cases, the others aren't suitable either (if the network is extensive, or using vendors without sufficient native IPv6 capabilities). Therefore an automatic encapsulation in IPv4 MPLS network is needed. 2. Why this solution: there haven't been other proposed solutions to this problem (in v6ops). However, one should note that the generic provider-provisioned VPN framework provides a slightly more extensive means to solve this problem, but is overly complex to those who do not need to provide IPv6 VPN services (but just want to support IPv6 over their MPLS core). Further, draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt has been implemented, is interoperable, and has been already extensively deployed. 3. Is this ready: the document is ready to be progressed by the routing area for Standards Track -- it has recently been revised a couple of times to remove unneeded functionality that was present earlier on, and is now a very simple and compact specification.” draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt
Changes/Issues • Changes: • Trimmed out the options that are not actually implemented/used (Single label, optional IPv4 header, other tunnelling techniques than MPLS…) • More specific on interop aspects (box using IPv6 Explicit-Null with box using arbitrary label) • Named the approach as “IPv6 Provider Edge (6PE)” • Issues: • No known issues draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt
Next Steps • TBD draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt