rbonica at juniper.net
Wed Sep 16 15:14:27 UTC 2020
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.
Juniper Business Use Only
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG