Subject: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 06:17:17 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-only MPLS Networks
        Authors         : Wesley George
                          Carlos Pignataro
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02.txt
	Pages           : 26
	Date            : 2014-08-25

Abstract:
   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
   not intended to highlight a particular vendor's implementation (or
   lack thereof) in the context of IPv6-only MPLS functionality, but
   rather to focus on gaps in the standards defining the MPLS suite.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 09:25:05 -0400

This addresses the comments from Alvaro's excellent and thorough review at
WGLC, and we think it's ready to go.

The text in the EVPN section (3.3.1.1) is still subject to change, as we
have not heard back from the authors of the EVPN draft, so the current
text is based on my admittedly unskilled review.

Thanks,

Wes

On 8/25/14, 9:17 AM, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

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.

---

From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:52:58 +0000

Wes,

Not an EVPN author, but I have some a couple of comments about section
3.3.1.1:

- Minor: EVPN is a separate AFI/SAFI so I would not make it a sub-section
of L2VPN, but I would rather put it at the same level. Now that the L2VPN
WG will no longer be a WG on its own, I would not classify EVPN as L2VPN
anymore. EVPN can even do L3.

- Why does EVPN inherit RFC 6074 gaps? I don’t see any gap in any of the
EVPN defined route types or procedures. I would remove that and keep the
dependency on mLDP and RFC 7117 (if any) for the PMSI tunnel attribute
that EVPN inherits. Other than that I see no gaps in EVPN.

Thank you.
Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: <George>, Wes <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, August 25, 2014 at 6:25 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02.txt

>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.

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:42:30 +0200

Jorge,

We will request publication now - there will be an AD evaluation and an
IETF last call, we will fold your comments in as part of one of these
reviews.

/Loa

-- 

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

---

From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:19:22 +0000

OK. Thank you, Loa.

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 at 4:42 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan <[email-masked]>, "George, Wes"
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02.txt

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:49:36 -0400

>anymore. EVPN can even do L3.
WG] My read was that it was using L2VPN's AFI, but defining a new SAFI, so
by strict interpretation, it is a subtype of L2VPN. IMHO it's a bit
hair-splitting either way. The absence or presence of a WG doesn't really
figure into my thought process when it comes to classification, especially
with the overall respin of the WGs in Routing Area, but I'm open to
further discussion if it really needs to be changed.

>that EVPN inherits. Other than that I see no gaps in EVPN.
WG] good to know I was mostly reading this right. The reason that I said
that it inherits 6074 gaps is that it can use LDP. Therefore it won't work
over LDP on an IPv6-only network until the gaps in LDP are fixed, right?
Or is there something I'm missing that makes that an invalid logical leap?

Thanks!

Wes George

---

From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:02:10 +0000

Hi Wes,

Please see in-line.

-----Original Message-----
From: <George>, Wes <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 at 5:49 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>

>further discussion if it really needs to be changed.

[JORGE] If the classification is based on the AFI, it is ok. I agree it is
hair-splitting.

>Or is there something I'm missing that makes that an invalid logical leap?

[JORGE] Right. EVPN can use LDP tunnels as a transport mechanism, so I
would keep the reference to section 3.2.1. However EVPN does not use the
RFC 6074 procedures to discover membership. It takes some procedures from
RFC 7117 but replacing RFC 6074 procedures for its own discovery
mechanisms.
I would then modify the text in this way:
"Because it can use functions in LDP and mLDP it inherits gaps previously
identified in LDP (Section 3.2.1). Once those gaps are resolved, it should
function properly
   on IPv6-only networks as defined.”

Let me know if I am missing something.
Thank you!