Subject: Current status of IPv6 support?

From: "Thomas Wolfram" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:47:55 +0100

The MPLS framework draft states that "initial MPLS effort
will be focused on IPv4". Nevertheless there are several
provisions for IPv6 in some draft documents (label-encaps,
rsvp-lsp-tunnel, cr-ldp, te-mib, lsr-mib).
But other drafts seem to make few provisions for IPv6 if at
all (ldp, icmp, diff-ext). So the ldp-06 draft specifies the
LDP/LSR identifiers just using a 4 octet IPv4 style IP address;
the optional parameter "transport address" of the LDP hello
message refers to IPv4 addresses, though I guess this could
be easily extended for IPv6 by defining a new type; and the
Address List TLVs would support IPv6 addresses as well, it's
just not defined yet in the draft).

So is it correct that plain LDP according to draft-ietf-mpls-
ldp-06.txt is more or less IPv4 specific right now (I'm not
asking for other L3 protocols - just IPv6)? And that CR-LDP
though allowing IPv6 addresses in ER-Hops still needs IPv4
because it's based on LDP and e.g. also uses 4 octet addresses
in LSPID TLVs (Ingress LSR Router ID).
And what about the extended RSVP? It supports IPv6 prefixes
but tunnel sender and end point addresses as well as Extended
Tunnel IDs are defined using IPv4 addresses. So IPv6 could be
transmiited over a ER-LSP but the LERs/LSRs themselves would
still have to run IPv4, right?

etc.etc.

Could somebody who knows please comment on how complete the
IPv6 support is in the current MPLS drafts?
I.e. how much IPv4 would still be needed in an IPv6 backbone
which would be based on MPLS running the current drafts for the
major label distribution schemes (LDP, CR-LDP or/and Extended-RSVP,
BPG4).
Is there something else missing for pure IPv6 interworking
in the current MPLS drafts?

Thanks in advance,
--