6PE for Standards Track in ISP scenarios?

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hello,

(co-chair hat on)

(There was already rough consensus in March 2004, but at the request
of the ADs, and since we will handle the other proposals the same way,
let's do this in a slightly more formal manner.)

In draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-analysis-03.txt we found that we
need draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt ("6PE/BGP-tunnel") to provide
easier transition for IPv4 MPLS networks.

Let me try to summarize the consensus:

1. Problem: to deploy IPv6 over an MPLS network, you'll have to either
use manually configured tunnels, deploy IPv6 natively, or upgrade the
whole signalling plane to support IPv6.  The MPLS operators haven't
been enthusiastic about the last option, and in many cases, the others
aren't suitable either (if the network is extensive, or using vendors
without sufficient native IPv6 capabilities).  Therefore an automatic
encapsulation in IPv4 MPLS network is needed.

2. Why this solution: there haven't been other proposed solutions to
this problem (in v6ops).  However, one should note that the generic
provider-provisioned VPN framework provides a slightly more extensive
means to solve this problem, but is overly complex to those who do not
need to provide IPv6 VPN services (but just want to support IPv6 over
their MPLS core).  Further, draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt has
been implemented, is interoperable, and has been already extensively
deployed.

3. Is this ready: the document is ready to be progressed by the
routing area for Standards Track -- it has recently been revised a
couple of times to remove unneeded functionality that was present
earlier on, and is now a very simple and compact specification.

If you disagree with these conclusions, please respond within a week,
by 22nd July.

Thanks!

(co-chair hat off)