Hi,
another method been used to differentiate IPv4 and IPv6 payload over MPLS LSP
by LERs:
* IPv4 Explicit Null label for IPv4 payload;
* IPv6 Explicit Null label for IPv6 payload.
Regards,
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: spring [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stefano Previdi
(sprevidi)
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 9:39 AM
To: Chris Bowers
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with MPLS
dataplane
On Sep 2, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
> Stefano,
>
> Thanks. Is there a mechanism to advertise different label blocks for v4 and
> v6 and have a single unique index value associated with the node?
there's a mechanism that allows you to advertise multiple label blocks and the
index is used across all of them (see isis/ospf sr extensions drafts). Not sure
if you need to explicitly advertise the af of the label block knowing that a
sid corresponds to a prefix which implies its af.
s.
> This would still result in different label values being used for v4 and v6
> packets destined for the same node, but the network operator only has to
> assign a single unique index value to each node.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:21 AM
> To: Chris Bowers
> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [spring] carrying IPv6 and IPv4 packets using SPRING/SR with
> MPLS dataplane
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
>> Has there been any discussion about how to carry both IPv6 and IPv4 packets
>> with SPRING/SR MPLS labels? From what I can tell, neither
>> draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-04 nor
>> draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-mpls-03 addresses this scenario.
>
>
> sid's are assigned to ip addresses (e.g. intf addresses). A node having two
> loopbacks (v4/v6) will have a sid for the ipv4 address and another one for
> the ipv6.
>
> Then you compute your spt's or explicit paths based on your af-topology and
> you pick the right sid's stack.
>
>
>> In the context of shortest-path forwarding using Node-SID labels, there
>> would seem to be two main approaches to consider. One could distinguish
>> between IPv6 and IPv4 packets by using two different Node-SID labels for the
>> same node.
>
>
> correct. this is same as above: one sid per address (one for v4 and one for
> v6).
>
> s.
>
>
>> Or one could use IPv6 and/or IPv4 Explicit Null labels pushed on the bottom
>> of the label stack by the SR ingress router.
>>
>> Do the authors of these drafts or other working group participants have an
>> opinion on the best way to address this scenario?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spring mailing list
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
