Re: 6PE-Alt

["Vishwas Manral" <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>]

Hi Francois,

To add to what you said. Yes with explicit NULL label use the
dataplane will be just the same, as when in the 6PE draft the Explicit
NULL label is signalled. So the new draft gives the exact same
functionality as 6PE with no extra signaling overhead.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Jan 31, 2008 6:25 AM, Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Francois,
>
> The document I have written does not use signaling and does not define
> a new AFI/SAFI functionality to achieve the 6PE. The document you have
> defined allows the use of signaling the IPv6 Explicit NULL label,
> which is different.There is no need to signal an IPv6 Explicit NULL
> label, the meaning is already implied in the label.
>
> The difference is obvious, we get the same functionality without
> adding any new signaling mechanism. I am well aware of both the RFC's
> and if you read the draft carefully, I have mentioned both the RFC's
> in the draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
>
>
> On Jan 31, 2008 2:34 AM, Francois Le Faucheur IMAP <flefauch@cisco.com> wrote:
> >  Hello Vishwas,
> >
> > There are two documents that relate to transport of IPv6 over an IPv4 MPLS
> > core:
> >  * RFC4659 (6VPE): IPv6 VPNS over (say) IPv4 MPLS
> >  * RFC4798 (6PE): IPv6 over IPv4 MPLS
> >
> > RFC4798 (6PE) already explicitly discusses the option of using the IPv6
> > Explicit Null Label:
> > "This label advertised by the egress 6PE Router with MP-BGP MAY be an
> > arbitrary label value,
> >    which identifies an IPv6 routing context or outgoing interface to
> >    send the packet to, or MAY be the IPv6 Explicit Null Label.
> > "
> >
> > From your description below, it sounds like your document effectively
> > (re)discusses one particular option of the 6PE approach. Is this the case or
> > is there really some new approach that is not already covered in 6PE?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Francois
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: "Vishwas Manral" <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
> > Date: 31 January 2008 06:08:26 GMT+01:00
> > To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Cc: jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel-lucent.be, dirk@onesparrow.com,
> > stuart.prevost@bt.com, flefauch@cisco.com
> > Subject: 6PE-Alt
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > We have written a draft which will possibly replace the 6PE RFC. The
> > 6PE RFC uses a label to be sent along with the prefix for each route.
> > This label is then used as the "VPN label" (keeping with the
> > terminology of BGP MPLS IP VPN RFC). However the only use the label
> > serves is to tell the encapsulated packet is an IPv6 packet, as well
> > as some additional uses as defined in the RFC.
> >
> > Because a VPN label is required and its only use is to signal that the
> > inside packet is IPv6, we instead elegantly use the "IPv6 Explicit
> > NULL label". This label signals the same information. The advantage is
> > that labels need not be added with the routes and no such extension is
> > required. It also considerably simplifies the Multi AS scenarios.
> >
> > The draft will soon be visible in the IETF site and is attached here.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vishwas and Manoj
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>