The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] Signalling unnumbered links in RSVP-TE for IPv6 networks
Hi I have been looking at signalling RSVP-TE LSPs in IPv6 networks. I think that the standard for signalling unnumbered links in RSVP-TE requires extension for use in an IPv6 network. RFC3477 defines objects and subobjects with 32-bit Router IDs. I think that there should be equivalent objects and subobjects defined with 128-bit router IDs for use in IPv6 networks. That is, there should be IPv6 equivalents, with 128-bit Router IDs, to the following. - LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object. - The Unnumbered Interface ID ERO subobject. - The Unnumbered Interface ID RRO subobject. My reasoning is as follows. - In RFC3477, the term "Router ID" is defined in section 2. to mean a stable IP address of an LSR that is always reachable if there is any connectivity to the LSR. - If using OSPF or ISIS as the IGP, then RFC3477 recommends that the router ID is set to the OSPF-TE "Router Address" or ISIS "TE Router ID". - Recent drafts from the OSPF and ISIS WGs have defined IPv6 traffic engineering extensions with 128-bit router addresses. - draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic, which defines extensions for traffic engineering to OSPFv3, defines a "Router IPv6 Address" TLV to advertise a stable IPv6 address that is always reachable if there is connectivity to the OSPFv3 router. - draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te defines a 128-bit "IPv6 TE Router ID" for supporting IPv6 traffic engineering. - The MPLS TE specification needs to change (rather than changing the OSPF and ISIS drafts) to allow a router in the path of an LSP to be identified using an IPv6 address. In particular, to allow LSPs to be signalled using a node IPv6 address where there are no interface addresses. - Therefore, to signal unnumbered links in RSVP-TE there need to be objects and subobjects defined that are the equivalent to those defined in RFC3477 but with 128-bit Router IDs, as suggested above. Is there interest in a draft to specify extensions to RFC3477 for IPv6 networks? Note also that I think a similar change is required to RFC3812 (TE-MIB) to allow an IPv6 address to be specified to identify the ingress and egress routers. All comments are welcome. Regards Alan Davey ------------------------------------ Alan Davey Data Connection Ltd Tel: +44 20 8366 1177 Fax: +44 20 8363 1039 Email: Alan.Davey@dataconnection.com Web: http://www.dataconnection.com _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls |
|