since we are discussing that topic, maybe the WG would like to reach a conclusion on how to treat that erratum: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5738
Thanks -m Le 2019-06-27 à 11:15, Xiejingrong a écrit : > Thanks for the RFC historical lessons. > > --there was historically some assumption that next hop must be of the > same AF as prefix. > > --RFC 2858 says that Next Hop field should match AFI. On the other hand, > RFC 4760 says that Next Hop Field should match combination of AFI/SAFI. > > --authors of RFC 4364 were trying to make it consistent with 4760. > > --Also, drafts of RFC 4364 and RFC 4760 were being developed practically > at the same time period. > > The problem is clear, the nexthop field has been inconsistent between > different L3VPN/MVPN scenarios and different implementations in the long > history. > > <draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-00> is the latest draft, but it has > different nexthop in section 3.1 to 3.4, in the year 2019. > > Back to my suggestion: implementation should interpret nexthop RD+IPv4 > and nexthop IPv4 the same, and interpret nexthop RD+IPv6 and nexthop > IPv6 the same. > > I think it may be helpful for <draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-00> to add > the above text, and update RFC4364/4659/4760/5549, to eliminate the > worries about interoperation. ----is there any worries about > interoperation ? > > Thanks > > Jingrong > > *From:*Alexander Okonnikov [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2019 9:38 PM > *To:* Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > *Cc:* UTTARO, JAMES <[email protected]>; Xiejingrong > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Idr] [bess] [Softwires] Regarding the Next Hop Network > Address coding for IPv4 VPN over IPv6 Core in RFC5549 > > Hi Robert, > > Sorry, I was not so precise :-) Of course, RD part in Next Hop is not > copied from RD of NLRI, but zeroed. I was trying to explain why Next Hop > field in RFC 4364 and RFC 4659 has format RD:IP (VPNvX address) rather > than just IP. > > Thank you! > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
