[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling



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.

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.

OK, it is specifically the use of the next hop that I wanted to check. If that is covered by an existing RFC then great.

The idea is the use of a suitable IPv6 next hop for an IPv6 prefix announced via an IPv4 BGP session. Is the correct practice to use a 2002:: prefix address as the IPv6 next hop to make the routing send via a protocol 41 IPv4 tunnel then? Is that documented?

There is another more radical idea I also have which maybe I'll raise as a separate issue though :-)