[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ideas for IPv6 BGP and tunnelling
Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
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  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.
 take a look at e.g:
I thought 6PE and BGP tunnelling got split into separate documents?
obviously my memory isn't serving me right.
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
Is there a full specification of this? Maybe the above draft
needs to be revived?