[address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Arnold Nipper
arnold.nipper at de-cix.net
Tue Nov 8 15:25:24 CET 2022
On 08.11.2022 14:55, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Will Hargrave wrote on 08/11/2022 13:48: >> If we think router vendors are in a position to reliably support v4 >> AF over BGP in v6, and actually route this traffic > > this is kinda the problem with RFC 5549, no? I.e. it deals only with > signaling rather than transport. So even if it's deployed, the IXP will > still need to provide ipv4 addresses for transport purposes. > IMO no. RFC 8950 [0] says ----------------- snip ----------------- 6. Usage Examples 6.1. IPv4 over IPv6 Core The extensions defined in this document may be used as discussed in [RFC5565] for the interconnection of IPv4 islands over an IPv6 backbone. In this application, Address Family Border Routers (AFBRs; as defined in [RFC4925]) advertise IPv4 NLRI in the MP_REACH_NLRI along with an IPv6 next hop ----------------- snap ----------------- The IPv6 backbone is the IXP. All of the participants only must have an IPv6 address. And we have plenty of them. IMO Euro-IX (or IX-F) should set up a WG to look into this. Arnold [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8950/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20221108/fb4dab20/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]