Subject: [Softwires] FWD: New Version Notification for draft-xu-softwire-tunnel-endpoint-00

From: Xu Xiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:09:58 +0800

Hi all,

I just submitted a draft about using a new Extended Community attribute
called Tunnel Endpoint Attribute to realize inter-AS softwire mesh. 

The abstract is as follows:
The Softwire Mesh Framework [RFC5565] provides a solution for intra-
AS softwires, but not inter-AS softwires.  The ability to provide 
inter-AS softwires extends the benefits of softwires to a larger 
scale.  Indeed, [RFC5565] discusses the possibility of inter-AS 
softwires, but does not provide a solution.  This document defines a 
specific Extended Community attribute called the Tunnel Endpoint 
attribute, which allows for inter-AS softwires.

For more detail, please see
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-softwire-tunnel-endpoint-00.txt

Any comment is appreciated.

Best wishes,
Xiaohu

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:[email-masked]] 
发送时间: 2009年10月19日 11:21
收件人: [email-masked]
主题: New Version Notification for draft-xu-softwire-tunnel-endpoint-00

A new version of I-D, draft-xu-softwire-tunnel-endpoint-00.txt has been
successfuly submitted by Xiaohu Xu and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-xu-softwire-tunnel-endpoint
Revision:	 00
Title:		 Simple Tunnel Endpoint Signaling in BGP
Creation_date:	 2009-10-19
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 15

Abstract:
The Softwire Mesh Framework [RFC5565] provides a solution for intra-
AS softwires, but not inter-AS softwires.  The ability to provide 
inter-AS softwires extends the benefits of softwires to a larger 
scale.  Indeed, [RFC5565] discusses the possibility of inter-AS 
softwires, but does not provide a solution.  This document defines a 
specific Extended Community attribute called the Tunnel Endpoint 
attribute, which allows for inter-AS softwires. 

Conventions used in this document 

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

The IETF Secretariat.