Subject: RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 10:35:33 -0400

Hi Hesham,

Although I have been reading this thread closely, I'm not
quite sure what we're talking about here...

>=> Are ISPs also happy to setup there EGPs manually? 
>I don't understand why we should drop something that makes
>it either to setup tunnels instead of relying on manual
>configuration. Just because people do it manually 
>today is not enough to justify dropping it. If people
>did that a few years ago, DHCP would not have been developed :)

Are you talking about the BGP Tunneling specification?

Even if it were absolutely necessary to have some sort of BGP
extensions to make shared IPv4/IPv6 networks work (about which
there is apparently some disagreement), why would we want to
standardize BGP extensions in an OPS area WG, instead of doing
it within the WG responsible for BGP (the idr WG).

Based on the v6ops charter, the v6ops WG might identify a need in
this area, but then we would work within the idr WG to devise
an appropriate solution.

Margaret

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 17:28:00 +0100

> it within the WG responsible for BGP (the idr WG).

from my reading of the BGP tunnel specification, I cannot see any text
suggesting new BGP extensions.

the document suggests two ways of using BGP:

 1. in combination with e.g 6to4, exchange native IPv6 prefixes, using
    6to4 next-hops. this already works with all BGP/IPv6
    implementations that I know of. the building blocks for this
    mechanism are already specified in 6to4 and MP-BGP RFC's.
    specifications.

 2. routes are exchanged over BGP/IPv4, some special next-hop, like an
    IPv4 mapped address is used. IPv6 route resolution has to do
    lookup in IPv4 RIB, and/or MPLS LIB.  which format the IPv6
    next-hop should have needs to be standardised.

> this area, but then we would work within the idr WG to devise

I think it belongs in v6ops.

/ot