We don't require any IPv6 enablement by the NOC. All we require is standard
dual stack on all autonomic devices, which creates link-local addresses.
Everything else in the ACP is automatic. Why waste any effort on an IPv4
version? (The operator can do whatever they want in the data plane, of
course.)
Regards,
Brian Carpenter
(via tiny screen & keyboard)
On Thu, 5 Aug 2021, 20:01 Liyizhou, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> RFC8994 explained the main reasons that ACP is based on IPv6 addressing
> are simplicity and scale.
>
> I wonder if there was/is any interest in defining and deploying ACP in
> IPv4-only network without requiring IPv6 enablement.
>
> For example, as ULA and link-local address schemes are not available in
> ipv4 networks, whether and how to establish the ACP channel? (RFC3927
> defines IPv4 link-local address config, but it is not a full functional
> substitute of ipv6 link-local address in ipv4 world in my understanding.)
>
>
>
> There might be discussions and thoughts in this aspect in earlier days in
> the community. I would be very appreciated if anyone can point them out.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Yizhou
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
