Folks,
If you want an IPv6 underlay for a network offering VPN services, it makes
sense to:
* Retain RFC 4291 IPv6 address semantics
* Decouple the TE mechanism from the service labeling mechanism
Please consider the TE mechanism described in draft-bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr
and the service labeling mechanism described in draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt.
These can be deployed on a mix and match basis. For example can deploy:
* Draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt only, allowing traffic to follow the
least-cost path from PE to PE.
* Deploy draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt only, using a legacy method (VXLAN,
RFC 4797) to label services.
In all cases, the semantic of the IPv6 address is unchanged. There is no need
to encode anything new in the IPv6 address.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
