Brian, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
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-00I 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.
That sort of became RFC4798, with focus on MPLS tunnelling
Any tunnelling of v6 over v4 would do, and each mechanism has its own spec. They just "work" regardless of the v6 content (for instance BGP v6). So I don't think we need to specify it further.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?
Eric
Brian