|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <nanog@nanog.org> In-Reply-To: <54EA01F0.1060505@foobar.org> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:14:09 -0000 Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org FWIW, draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 [1] is now at revision 17. But it is complete = and totally stable. It was approved for publication as an RFC on March 4th and the document = is currently with the RFC Editor in the "final stages of sausage = grinding"=20 I would predict that you will have an RFC number to reference within = about 4 weeks from now. Adrian [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6/ > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Nick = Hilliard > Sent: 22 February 2015 16:21 > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 >=20 > On 21/02/2015 14:28, Rogers, Josh wrote: > > RFC7349 is a nice summary of everything we=C2=B9re still missing wrt = MPLS and > > is relatively recent so should be close to up to date. In addition = to the > > MPLS shortcomings, it also touches on recent IGP updates: >=20 > rfc7439, not 7349: >=20 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439 >=20 > Nick >=20 > > > >> 3.2.3.1. Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) > >> > >> RFC 3630 [RFC3630] specifies a method of adding traffic = engineering > >> capabilities to OSPF Version 2. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added = in > >> RFC 5329 [RFC5329] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks in = OSPF > >> Version 3. > >> > >> RFC 5305 [RFC5305] specifies a method of adding traffic = engineering > >> capabilities to IS-IS. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in RFC = 6119 > >> [RFC6119] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks. > >> > >> Gap: None. > > > > When you talk to your vendor, ask what code will support these = RFC=C2=B9s. > > > > > > -Josh > > > > > > > >> On 2/21/15, 6:00 AM, "nanog-request@nanog.org" <nanog- > request@nanog.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Message: 1 > >>> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:00:07 -0500 > >>> From: Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com> > >>> To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> > >>> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, Juniper-Nsp > >>> <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>, "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" > >>> <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> > >>> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 > >>> Message-ID: > >>> > <CAE_ug16FGyQXsTuyP9o+uTDhdNpGBgFE6H5EbU4TDHb73Vm1UQ@mail.gmail. > com> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUTF-8 > >>> > >>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would = quite > >>>> like > >>>>> to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget... > >>>>> > >>>>> (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is = the last > >>>>> piece for me.) > >>>> > >>>> Is there 4PE implementation to drive IPv4 edges, shouldn't be = hard to > >>>> accept > >>>> IPv6 next-hop in BGP LU, but probably does not work = out-of-the-box? > >>>> Isn't Segment Routing implementation day1 IPV4+IPV6 in XR? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> ++ytti > >>>> > >>> > >>> I would gladly take OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS+SR over LDP, but I'm seeing = that > >>> is > >>> not all that is needed. > >>> > >>> I also need some flavor of L2VPN (eVPN) and L3VPN (VPNv4/VPNv6) > working > >>> over IPv6. > >>> > >>> IPv6 control plane this decade may yet be optimistic. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Tim:> > >>> > >> > > > > > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject = to copyright > belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the = use of the > individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the = intended recipient > of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, = distribution, > copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and = attachments to this E- > mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received = this E-mail in > error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the = original > and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. > >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |