Subject: FW: IP6 support in draft-parker-isis-wg-mib-00.txt

From: Jeff Parker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 10:33:26 -0500

Fred raises an good point here - what plans do we have for IP V6?

The current answer is: "There is no support in RFC 1195 for IP V6", 
but this does not need to be our final statement.  Is anyone proposing
a format for storing V6 addresses in LSPs?  We can consider adding
them to the MIB if there is interest.  

- jparker
- nexabit.com
- Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Fred Baker [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Thursday, February 18, 1999 5:43 PM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject:	IP6 support in draft-parker-isis-wg-mib-00.txt
> 
> A question has come up that you may know the answer to. How does
> draft-parker-isis-wg-mib-00.txt address IP6 environments? Specifically
> what recommendations do you have for supporting IP6?

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:59:28 -0800 (PST)

|  Fred raises an good point here - what plans do we have for IP V6?
|
|  The current answer is: "There is no support in RFC 1195 for IP V6", 
|  but this does not need to be our final statement.  Is anyone proposing
|  a format for storing V6 addresses in LSPs?  We can consider adding
|  them to the MIB if there is interest.  

Jeff,

<WG co-chair>
Currently IPv6 is not a work item on our agenda.  However, if someone were
so inclined, there's no impediment that I know of to proposing extensions
to support v6.  If that were to happen, then extending the MIB might be of
interest.
</WG co-chair>

I'll take the opportunity to point out that this doesn't seem to be a
problem that people want solved, however.  One might observe that there is
no intersection between the people running IS-IS and the people wanting
IPv6.

Tony

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:22:37 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> first it is not true (all reasons to run IS-IS in place of OSPF are
still good for IPv6 IS-IS against OSPFng and there are not enough
available implementations for OSPFng today then IPv6 IS-IS could be
a faster way to get a good IPv6 IGP and not stay with RIPng...).

Second IS-IS is a naturally multiprotocol IGP then either it is well
suit for IPv6 either you'd like to remove the multiprotocol capability
from IS-IS...

There are only two needed points for an IPv6 IS-IS:
 - define some (sub-)TLVs for LSPs
 - resolve link-local address issues (if any)
Just do it...

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 16:02:35 -0800 (PST)

|  => first it is not true

Counter example?

|  There are only two needed points for an IPv6 IS-IS:
|   - define some (sub-)TLVs for LSPs

Agreed.

|   - resolve link-local address issues (if any)

Unnecessary.

|  Just do it...

We're waiting for a volunteer.  Thank you for stepping forward.

Tony

---

From: [email-masked] (Ran Atkinson)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:24:37 -0800

On Feb 19 18:59, Tony Li wrote:
} Subject: Re: FW: IP6 support in draft-parker-isis-wg-mib-00.txt

% I'll take the opportunity to point out that this doesn't seem to be a
% problem that people want solved, however.  One might observe that
% there is no intersection between the people running IS-IS and
% the people wanting IPv6.

From where I sit, two broader statements appear to be true,
at the moment:
	- There appear to be no major providers interested in
	  offering an IPv6 service just now. (This could represent a
	  business opportunity for someone, if paying customers exist).
	- Most current major users ISIS are service providers.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 16:22:51 +0100

Counter example?
   
=> I only need to exhibit someone saying he'd like to use IS-IS
as an IGP for IPv6: not too difficult (easier than last point :-).

   Unnecessary.
   
=> I believe there is no such issue (for OSPFng there is a special
case of virtual links) but I prefer that someone checks this point.
   
   |  Just do it...

=> thanks!

[email-masked]

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:04:18 -0800 (PST)

|   In your previous mail you wrote:
|  
|     |  => first it is not true
|     
|     Counter example?
|     
|  => I only need to exhibit someone saying he'd like to use IS-IS
|  as an IGP for IPv6: not too difficult (easier than last point :-).

Yes, but can you do even that?  ;-)

Please understand that part of my job is to understand the needs of my
customers, and my scope in that respect is far broader than just IS-IS.

Tony

---

From: Guy Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:36:54 +0000 (BST)

Hi Tony et al,

IMO, it would be very worthwhile investigating the required changes (if
any) to IS-IS to be able to carry IPv6 routing information.  If it's a
choice between two instances of OSPF (or one OSPFng and one IS-IS) on
every router or one instance of IS-IS carrying both IPv4 and IPv6 routing
information, it seems clear to me that a single instance of IS-IS would be
the choice at UUNET.

Regards,

Guy 

> customers, and my scope in that respect is far broader than just IS-IS.

Guy Davies			
UUNET, an MCI WorldCom company

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:26:05 -0800 (PST)

|  IMO, it would be very worthwhile investigating the required changes (if
|  any) to IS-IS to be able to carry IPv6 routing information.  If it's a
|  choice between two instances of OSPF (or one OSPFng and one IS-IS) on
|  every router or one instance of IS-IS carrying both IPv4 and IPv6 routing
|  information, it seems clear to me that a single instance of IS-IS would be
|  the choice at UUNET.
|
|  > |  => I only need to exhibit someone saying he'd like to use IS-IS
|  > |  as an IGP for IPv6: not too difficult (easier than last point :-).

Guy,

Are you saying that UUnet intends to use IS-IS for IPv6 routing?  Are you
saying that this needs to happen sometime within our general lifetimes?

Tony

---

From: Guy Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:36:06 +0000

> saying that this needs to happen sometime within our general lifetimes?

Hi Tony,

I am saying that if IPv6 were to be introduced into a production network
run by UUNET, it would be necessary to have an IGP which supported all
the functionality we're used to without putting more load than
absolutely necessary on our existing equipment.  Given that IS-IS is
widely deployed within the UUNET group of companies, it would be useful
to us to know that if IPv6 is deployed, we can continue to use IS-IS as
our IGP for all the protocols we carry over our network.

In terms of timescales, that's difficult to say but I would say that I'm
still young so I hope I'll see some alternative to IPv4 deployed before
I die ;-)  IMHO IPv6, despite it's imperfections, remains the best
current option.  Having said that, even if IPv6 is never widely
deployed, any work done on evaluating the way in which IPv6 routing
information can be carried in IS-IS would surely be applicable to some
extent to any subsequent Internet Protocol.

Regards,

Guy

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:02:27 -0800 (PST)

|  I am saying that if IPv6 were to be introduced into a production network
|  run by UUNET, it would be necessary to have an IGP which supported all
|  the functionality we're used to without putting more load than
|  absolutely necessary on our existing equipment.  

That's one big 'if'.  ;-)

|  In terms of timescales, that's difficult to say but I would say that I'm
|  still young so I hope I'll see some alternative to IPv4 deployed before
|  I die ;-)

If you wouldn't mind and for the record, just how long are you expecting?

|  IMHO IPv6, despite it's imperfections, remains the best
|  current option.  Having said that, even if IPv6 is never widely
|  deployed, any work done on evaluating the way in which IPv6 routing
|  information can be carried in IS-IS would surely be applicable to some
|  extent to any subsequent Internet Protocol.

It turns out that there's just not that much stuff that's new an
interesting about carrying IPv6 addressing information.  Given the way that
IS-IS is based, you would want to add a TLV.  This would contain what would
look like a 'prefix'.  A longer one to be sure, but nothing that could
possibly qualify as 'new' or 'interesting'.  It's precisely because IPv6 is
IPv4 with 'more bits' that it doesn't really change the paradigm all that
much.

Tony

---

From: Mike Shand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:14:12 +0000

>IPv4 with 'more bits' that it doesn't really change the paradigm all that

Sure, its completely trivial. But shouldn't we write down a TLV format for
it, so that people can play with it if they want to. In fact I think Jitu
Patel implemented something before he left DEC. We certainly talked about
it. Jitu?

The only vaguely interesting thing I can think of is that given that IPv6
addresses seem to be somewhat sparse, there might be some opportunity for
bit bumming in the 'prefix':-) Or not!

	Mike

---

From: Guy Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:17:46 +0000

> |  absolutely necessary on our existing equipment.

Well, it is clearly in the best interests of all concerned that any
changes required for IS-IS to support any new protocol receive strong
engineering concensus.  This is essential to help to find the best
solutions, the most reliable interoperability and the smoothest
transition mechanisms.

It's equally important to ask whether any proposed effort within the
IETF is solving a real problem experienced by real customers or if it is
just a problem perceived by those not actually in the best position to
judge.

> If you wouldn't mind and for the record, just how long are you expecting?

I've been discussing this issue with Mike O'Dell and we are agreed that
generally, the adoption of new protocols and features is driven by
market dynamics which are outside the control of the IETF.  Therefore,
it's not very productive to make sweeping statements in this group
regarding the timescales within which any specific protocol will be
adopted.

Guy

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:58:06 -0800 (PST)

|  Sure, its completely trivial. But shouldn't we write down a TLV format for
|  it, so that people can play with it if they want to. In fact I think Jitu
|  Patel implemented something before he left DEC. We certainly talked about
|  it. Jitu?

Rumor has it that Dave Katz did something similar just before he left his
previous employer.  Coincidence?  ;-)

In any case, as I said before, the floor is certainly open on the issue.
While it's not a work item, if someone is so inclined.... 

|  The only vaguely interesting thing I can think of is that given that IPv6
|  addresses seem to be somewhat sparse, there might be some opportunity for
|  bit bumming in the 'prefix':-) Or not!

IMHO, this seems to have a very poor ROI and runs an interesting risk of
being a problem when they change the address allocation strategy.  We're
not THAT tight on LSP space.

Tony