Re: [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
Dear all, As I'm one of the original authors of this document (now nicely hidden behind the "Slovenian IPv6 working group" blob ;) and had a bit to do with MPLS in the past, please allow me to comment on the MPLS-related requirements. 6PE/6VPE ========= Unfortunately, the only way to combine IPv6 with MPLS features like MPLS-TE or FRR today (and in the next few years) is to run IPv4 MPLS core and 6PE/6VPE. The requirement to support 6PE/6VPE is thus MANDATORY, but has to be conditioned the same way mobile IPv6 is. I would therefore suggest that we add the following two bullets to the "Mandatory support" part of the "Router or Layer 3 switch" equipment: * If MPLS functionality (for example, BGP-free core, MPLS TE, MPLS FRR) is requested, the PE-routers and route reflectors MUST support "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)" [RFC 4798] * If layer-3 VPN functionality is requested, the PE-routers and route reflectors MUST support "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN" [RFC 4659] MT IS-IS & MPLS =============== There's another gotcha that we totally missed: MT for IS-IS (RFC 5120) should be mentioned and it should be MANDATORY in combination with MPLS (otherwise you might experience some weird symptoms if you decide to run some IPv6 natively). The "Router or Layer 3 switch" equipment section thus needs two more items: MANDATORY --------- * If MPLS Traffic Engineering is used in combination with IS-IS routing protocol, the equipment MUST support "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)" [RFC 5120] OPTIONAL -------- * When IS-IS routing protocol is requested, the equipment SHOULD support "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)" [RFC 5120] (this support is highly recommended) Best, Ivan Pepelnjak www.ioshints.info
On 10.11.10 9:08, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
Dear all,
As I'm one of the original authors of this document (now nicely hidden behind the "Slovenian IPv6 working group" blob ;)
;)
* If MPLS functionality (for example, BGP-free core, MPLS TE, MPLS FRR) is requested, the PE-routers and route reflectors MUST support "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)" [RFC 4798]
Agree.
* If layer-3 VPN functionality is requested, the PE-routers and route reflectors MUST support "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN" [RFC 4659]
Agree.
The "Router or Layer 3 switch" equipment section thus needs two more items:
MANDATORY --------- * If MPLS Traffic Engineering is used in combination with IS-IS routing protocol, the equipment MUST support "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)" [RFC 5120]
OPTIONAL -------- * When IS-IS routing protocol is requested, the equipment SHOULD support "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)" [RFC 5120] (this support is highly recommended)
What can I say? Agree :) You are the MPLS man (as you wrote a Cisco book about that), so I trust you with this :) Cheers, /jan
agree ;) Jan Zorz @ go6.si ha scritto:
On 10.11.10 9:08, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
Dear all,
As I'm one of the original authors of this document (now nicely hidden behind the "Slovenian IPv6 working group" blob ;)
;)
* If MPLS functionality (for example, BGP-free core, MPLS TE, MPLS FRR) is requested, the PE-routers and route reflectors MUST support "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)" [RFC 4798]
Agree.
* If layer-3 VPN functionality is requested, the PE-routers and route reflectors MUST support "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN" [RFC 4659]
Agree.
The "Router or Layer 3 switch" equipment section thus needs two more items:
MANDATORY --------- * If MPLS Traffic Engineering is used in combination with IS-IS routing protocol, the equipment MUST support "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)" [RFC 5120]
OPTIONAL -------- * When IS-IS routing protocol is requested, the equipment SHOULD support "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)" [RFC 5120] (this support is highly recommended)
What can I say? Agree :)
You are the MPLS man (as you wrote a Cisco book about that), so I trust you with this :)
Cheers, /jan
-- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 http://as12835.peeringdb.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto € 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 04:08:42 pm Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
MT IS-IS & MPLS =============== There's another gotcha that we totally missed: MT for IS-IS (RFC 5120) should be mentioned and it should be MANDATORY in combination with MPLS (otherwise you might experience some weird symptoms if you decide to run some IPv6 natively).
Apologies for the late reply: I think it would be a good idea to recommend MT regardless of whether MPLS is in use or not. Some systems, by default, will enable IS-IS for both v4 and v6 when turned on, e.g., JUNOS. Others won't and require either v4 or v6 support to be enabled explicitly, e.g., IOS. I think recommending MT be supported in all implementations of IS-IS is useful, so that native/dual-stack deployments of v6 don't cause network outages due to lack of topology congruency during turn-up. Cheers, Mark.
Yes. I think Multitopology is needed with IPv6 and ISIS. Mark Tinka ha scritto:
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 04:08:42 pm Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
MT IS-IS & MPLS =============== There's another gotcha that we totally missed: MT for IS-IS (RFC 5120) should be mentioned and it should be MANDATORY in combination with MPLS (otherwise you might experience some weird symptoms if you decide to run some IPv6 natively).
Apologies for the late reply:
I think it would be a good idea to recommend MT regardless of whether MPLS is in use or not.
Some systems, by default, will enable IS-IS for both v4 and v6 when turned on, e.g., JUNOS. Others won't and require either v4 or v6 support to be enabled explicitly, e.g., IOS.
I think recommending MT be supported in all implementations of IS-IS is useful, so that native/dual-stack deployments of v6 don't cause network outages due to lack of topology congruency during turn-up.
Cheers,
Mark.
-- Ing. Isacco Fontana Trentino Network s.r.l. A socio Unico Direzione Servizi Responsabile Area Ingegneria di Rete Via Gilli, 2 - 38100 TRENTO Tel (+39) 0461.020200 Fax (+39) 0461.020201 http://as12835.peeringdb.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cap. Soc. sottoscritto EUR 7.573.248,00 i.v. - REG. IMP. C.F. e P. IVA 01904880224 E-mail: sede@trentinonetwork.it Società soggetta a direzione e controllo da parte della Provincia Autonoma di Trento. C.F. e P. IVA 00337460224 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (4)
-
Isacco Fontana -
Ivan Pepelnjak -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Mark Tinka