Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

Ole,

On 2009-04-24 01:02, Ole Troan wrote:
>> But I fear there so far the idea hasn't gotten much traction. In fact, the
>> RFC4798 predecessor documents [1] included ability to set up tunnels over
>> GRE and similar non-MPLS encapsulations.  This was explicitly _removed_
>> because the solution was targeted at MPLS networks, not as a general purpose
>> BGP-signalled tunneling mechanism.
>>
>> [1] take a look at e.g:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-00
> 
> I thought 6PE and BGP tunnelling got split into separate documents?
> obviously my memory isn't serving me right.

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ngtrans-bgp-tunnel-04.txt
(thankyou Google)

I don't recall why that never became an RFC.

> you can still do BGP tunnelling with existing mechanisms. PEs are
> connected through a full mesh of BGP peerings. each PE has an
> automatic tunnelling interface (6to4, automatic tunnelling). BGP
> next-hops are the 6to4/v4compatible address. note that 6to4 is only
> used internally and the sites connecting to the PE uses native
> addresses.

Is there a full specification of this? Maybe the above draft
needs to be revived?

    Brian