Subject: [mpls] draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases - almost completed WGLC

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:08:45 +0100

draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases has almost finished IETF LC (two days left)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases/

There are a number of statements about the development of MPLS over IPv6 
that are used to justify the argument of the authors that MPLS cannot 
run over an IPv6 only network. It seems to me that these statements 
ought to be checked for correctness by the MPLS WG.

Stewart

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 09:01:44 +0200

Stewart,

Tnx for the heads-up, I had missed this :(, and have still not read the
draft.

Alvaro,

Is it possible to give the MPLS wg time to review this? As far as I can
see this was never brought to the attntion of the MPLS wg.

/Loa

On 2017-05-02 15:08, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 17:05:58 +0000

On 5/5/17, 3:01 AM, "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Loa:

Hi!

> see this was never brought to the attntion of the MPLS wg.

This draft is not about MPLS, it is about documenting IPv6 use cases.  More explicitly, it is about the case where operators don’t want to use the MPLS control plane with segment routing.

Stewart (in his GenArt review) correctly pointed at the fact that the document used the perceived lack of ability to run MPLS on an IPv6-only network as part of the justification for IPv6-based segment routing.  I think that the correct way to address that is to take the focus away from MPLS – there’s no need to even mention it in use cases that won’t use it.

The authors have agreed to refocus the document that way.

In summary, I don’t think it is necessary for the mpls WG to consider this document.  Even though we already finished IETF LC, it will still take me several weeks before the IESG considers approval (because I’m forwarding this document in a cluster with other related ones), so you can still send comments about it.  However, please wait for the authors to refocus the text and at least post -11 before looking at it.

Thanks!

Alvaro.