Please reject this erratum. RFC6515 is mandatory to require 4/16 bytes nexthop, and mandatory to reject 12/24 bytes nexthop.
Thanks. Jingrong. -----Original Message----- From: Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) [mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 6:37 PM To: Xiejingrong <xiejingr...@huawei.com>; Alexander Okonnikov <alexander.okonni...@gmail.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; bess@ietf.org Cc: softwi...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] [bess] [Softwires] Regarding the Next Hop Network Address coding for IPv4 VPN over IPv6 Core in RFC5549 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:alexander.okonni...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2019 9:38 PM > *To:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > *Cc:* UTTARO, JAMES <ju1...@att.com>; Xiejingrong > <xiejingr...@huawei.com>; softwi...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; > ian.far...@telekom.de; bess@ietf.org; ianfar...@gmx.com > *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 > i...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
