On 08.11.2022 14:55, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Will Hargrave wrote on 08/11/2022 13:48:
If we think router vendors are in a position to reliably support v4 AF over BGP in v6, and actually route this traffic
this is kinda the problem with RFC 5549, no? I.e. it deals only with signaling rather than transport. So even if it's deployed, the IXP will still need to provide ipv4 addresses for transport purposes.
IMO no. RFC 8950 [0] says ----------------- snip ----------------- 6. Usage Examples 6.1. IPv4 over IPv6 Core The extensions defined in this document may be used as discussed in [RFC5565] for the interconnection of IPv4 islands over an IPv6 backbone. In this application, Address Family Border Routers (AFBRs; as defined in [RFC4925]) advertise IPv4 NLRI in the MP_REACH_NLRI along with an IPv6 next hop ----------------- snap ----------------- The IPv6 backbone is the IXP. All of the participants only must have an IPv6 address. And we have plenty of them. IMO Euro-IX (or IX-F) should set up a WG to look into this. Arnold [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8950/