Xiaohu, The reason the use case is confusing is that the term L3VPN is commonly used to refer to RFC 4364 VPNs. In your use case, you are hypothesizing something for Segment Routed L3VPNs that I’m not sure is needed with MPLS. Can you add some real use cases to your drafts with justification that it is needed?
Acee On May 9, 2014, at 5:31 AM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Karsten, > > Your understanding is completely correct. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Karsten Thomann >> 发送时间: 2014年5月9日 16:58 >> 收件人: Xuxiaohu; Anton Smirnov >> 抄送: [email protected]; George, Wes; [email protected]; joel jaeggli; >> OSPF List; [email protected]; [email protected] >> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >> >> Hi Xiaohu, >> >> I think I've understand your problem now, but please don't call it a Router >> ID, the >> router ID must not be an IP address. >> To avoid any confusion about it please call it a router ip or router address >> within >> the TLV. >> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand your drafts right you're >> not >> requesting a real IPv6 Router ID instead of the (arbitrary) 32bit ID, but a >> simple >> TLV to carry the routable IPv6 address of the router which advertises the >> capability. >> >> If I understand it right, we should maybe fix the text of the other rfc to >> refect >> that it is an routable IP address, instead of a (possible) arbitrary but >> unique >> Router ID. >> >> Kind regards >> Karsten >> >> Am 09.05.2014 02:53, schrieb Xuxiaohu: >>> Hi Anton, >>> >>> When ISIS capability TLVs are flooded across areas, routers in one area may >> need to establish correlations between IP addresses and capabilities of >> routers in >> another area. For example, assume IS-IS router A in one area has established >> a >> L3VPN session with IS-IS router B in another area. When router A needs to >> send >> L3VPN traffic to router B via a MPLS-SR tunnel, router A wants to know >> whether >> router B (identified by an IP address) has the ELC >> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00) before inserting an >> EL into >> the MPLS-SR packet. In such case, it needs to contain at least one routable >> IP >> address in the capability TLV which has been flooded across area boundaries. >> In >> the IPv4 network, the 4-octect router ID field could contain such routable >> IPv4 >> address. However, in the IPv6 network, there is no counterpart field to >> contain a >> routable IPv6 address. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Xiaohu >>> >>>> -----邮件原件----- >>>> 发件人: Anton Smirnov [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> 发送时间: 2014年5月8日 22:49 >>>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >>>> 抄送: [email protected]; George, Wes; [email protected]; joel >>>> jaeggli; OSPF List; [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> 主题: Re: [OSPF] 答复: 答复: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >>>> >>>> Hello Xiaohu, >>>> this whole thread started from George Wes stating that even in >>>> pure >>>> IPv4 world Router ID in many protocols is NOT an IPv4 address. For >>>> convenience it frequently is but on the binary scale "ID guaranteed >>>> to be routable IPv4 address"/"ID is just a number" - the Router ID is NOT >>>> an >> IPv4 address. >>>> >>>> So, before you convince people that IPv6 Rtr ID is needed you >>>> must start from discussing when and why Router ID is being used as >>>> IPv4 address in pure >>>> IPv4 world. I believe this in other words is what Acee asking you. >>>> >>>> Anton >>>> >>>> >>>> On 05/07/2014 03:10 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: >>>>> Hi Acee, >>>>> >>>>> The motivation for these two drafts >>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-ipv6-router-id-00 and >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-ospf-ipv6-router-id-00) is very >>>> simple: the >>>> IPv6 ISIS|OSPF capability TLV/RI-LSA which are used for advertising >>>> router capabilities can be flooded across areas, however, only a >>>> 4-octect router ID is carried in them. As a result, it’s hard for >>>> routers in one area to establish correlations between IPv6 addresses and >> capabilities of routers in another area. >>>> For example, assume IS-IS router A in one area has established a >>>> L3VPN session with IS-IS router B in another area over their own IPv6 >>>> addresses. When router A needs to send L3VPN traffic to router B via >>>> a MPLS-SR tunnel, router A wants to know whether router B has the ELC >>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00) before >>>> inserting an EL into the MPLS-SR packet . However, the Capability TLV >>>> originated by router B doesn’t carried an IPv6 address of its own. As a >>>> result, >> it ! >>>> s hard fo >>>> r router A to know the ELC of router B. >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Xiaohu >>>>> >>>>>> -----邮件原件----- >>>>>> 发件人: Acee Lindem [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> 发送时间: 2014年5月6日 21:14 >>>>>> 收件人: Xuxiaohu >>>>>> 抄送: joel jaeggli; Acee Lindem; George, Wes; [email protected]; OSPF >>>>>> List; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> 主题: Re: [OSPF] 答复: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 5, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----邮件原件----- >>>>>>>> 发件人: Isis-wg [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 joel jaeggli >>>>>>>> 发送时间: 2014年5月5日 23:55 >>>>>>>> 收件人: Acee Lindem; Xuxiaohu; George, Wes >>>>>>>> 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>>>>>>> [email protected]; [email protected] >>>>>>>> 主题: Re: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/5/14, 9:28 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: >>>>>>>>> Xiaohu – what are precisely the situations that you think you >>>>>>>>> need this >>>>>>>>> IPv6 address? >>>>>>>>> Acee >>>>>>>> if you're using router-id's as equivalency as an ipv4 unicast >>>>>>>> addresses. >>>>>>>> you're doing so at your peril because there is zero assurance >>>>>>>> that those actually map. the first time you have a router id of >>>>>>>> 11100000000000000000000000000101 well bummer. >>>>>>> The IPv6 router ID sub-TLV of the ISIS router capability TLV must >>>>>>> carry a >>>>>> "routable" IPv6 address. If the name of the sub-TLV seems >>>>>> confusing, it can be changed to IPv6 address sub-TLV. >>>>>> >>>>>> Independent of what you call it, you didn’t answer my question. >>>>>> Other than TE, what the use cases where it is needed? >>>>>> >>>>>> Acee >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Xiaohu >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't find the embedding of semantic meaning in router-ids to >>>>>>>> be more compelling then it was in ip addresses. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Xuxiaohu <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:29 AM >>>>>>>>> To: "George, Wes" <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>> Cc: OSPF - OSPF WG List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >>>>>>>>> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Wes, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for pointing out these two drafts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The motivation for these two drafts >>>>>>>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-ipv6-router-id-00 and >>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-ospf-ipv6-router-id-00) is >> very >>>>>>>>> simple: the IPv6 ISIS|OSPF capability TLV/RI-LSA which are used >> for >>>>>>>>> advertising router capabilities can be flooded across areas, >>>>>>>>> however, only a 4-octect router ID is carried in them. As a >>>>>>>>> result, >>>>>>>>> it’s hard for routers in one area to establish correlations >> between >>>>>>>>> IPv6 addresses and capabilities of routers in another area. For >>>>>>>>> example, assume IS-IS router A in one area has established a >> L3VPN >>>>>>>>> session with IS-IS router B in another area over their own IPv6 >>>>>>>>> addresses. When router A needs to send L3VPN traffic to >>>>>>>>> router B >>>> via >>>>>>>>> a MPLS-SR tunnel, router A wants to know whether router B >>>>>>>>> has >>>> the >>>>>>>>> ELC (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00) before >>>>>>>>> >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-isis-mpls-elc-00)%20before> >>>>>>>>> inserting an EL into the MPLS-SR packet . However, the >> Capability >>>>>>>>> TLV originated by router B doesn’t carried an IPv6 address of its >>>>>>>>> own. As a result, it’s hard for router A to know the ELC of >> router B. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Xiaohu >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *发件人:*George, Wes [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>>>> *发送时间:*2014年5月2日1:51 >>>>>>>>> *收件人:*Xuxiaohu >>>>>>>>> *抄送:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> *主题:*Re: [sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I got a bounce-back on all 3 draft aliases, trying again with the >>>>>>>>> authors’s email addresses directly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From: *<George>, "George, Wes" >> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>> *Date: *Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 1:42 PM >>>>>>>>> *To: *"[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, >>>>>>>>> "[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>> *Cc: *"[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>" >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>, >>>>>>>>> "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" >> <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>> *Subject: *[sunset4] IPv6 router IDs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I see that you have submitted two drafts for IPv6 router IDs in >> ISIS >>>>>>>>> and OSPF, noting that the existing router ID is only 4 octets. >>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>> has also come up in IDR for BGP. The authors of that draft are >>>>>>>>> copied. I’ll give you a similar set of feedback to what I >>>>>>>>> gave them - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is important to distinguish between places where a unique >>>>>>>>> identifier is needed, and by *convention* an IPv4 address >> assigned >>>>>>>>> to the device has been used to provide that unique ID, vs. places >>>>>>>>> where the actual IP address has some sort of importance to the >>>>>>>>> protocol (I.e. That information must be available to take action >> on). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words, is the protocol requirement that the ID be >> unique >>>>>>>>> across some domain, but that the actual value does not matter, >> or is >>>>>>>>> the protocol requirement that the value must correspond to >>>> something >>>>>>>>> on the router? In many of the former cases, the fact that the >> value >>>>>>>>> isn’t relevant has been used to make recommendations that >>>>>>>>> are >>>> easier >>>>>>>>> for humans to deal with (I.e. Tying the router ID to an IP >> address) >>>>>>>>> but that value as a human-readable set of info does not >> necessarily >>>>>>>>> justify changes to the protocol to support that convention as >> we >>>>>>>>> move to IPv6. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would argue that the router ID used in routing protocols must >>>>>>>>> merely be unique, but it doesn’t have to be an IP address at all. >>>>>>>>> Thus it is not strictly necessary to create a new field to carry >>>>>>>>> IPv6 addresses when operating without IPv4 addresses on a >>>> network. >>>>>>>>> If you believe otherwise, the justification needs to be >> documented >>>>>>>>> in the draft. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are many places in IETF protocols where a 32 bit unique >>>>>>>>> identifier is needed, and by convention an IPv4 address has >> been >>>>>>>>> used. It would be far more useful to write a general draft >>>>>>>>> identifying this problem and discussing several solutions, >> including >>>>>>>>> simply generating unique IDs manually, systematically >> generating a >>>>>>>>> random ID, etc. the place for such a draft may be in Sunset4, >>>>>>>>> either as a part of the existing gap analysis draft or as another >>>>>>>>> standalone draft. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There was rather a long discussion about this on IDR, thread >>>>>>>>> here: >>>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&email_list=idr&q >>>>>>>>> =% >>>>>>>>> 22 >>>>>>>>> %5 >>>>>>>>> Bidr%5D+%5Bv6ops%5D+BGP+Identifier%22&as=1&gbt=1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And in the IDR meeting, minutes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-idr >>>>>>>>> (see page 11) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I’d encourage the authors of these drafts to work together on >> this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wes George >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anything below this line has been added by my company’s >>>>>>>>> mail >>>> server, >>>>>>>>> I have no control over it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ----------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> sunset4 mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> OSPF mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OSPF mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Isis-wg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
