Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

[Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>]

> 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).

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.

> 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.

I think it belongs in v6ops.

/ot