1. IETF 60 draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE) J. De Clerq, Alcatel D. Ooms S. Prevost, BT F. Le Faucheur, Cisco Systems

2. IETF 60 draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt P P P P v6 IPv4 MPLS v4 v6 v4 v6 CE 6PE 2001:0421:: 2001:0420:: 192.76.10.0 145.95.0.0 2001:0621:: 2001:0620:: IPv6 Provider Edge Router (6PE): Problem Statement - Provide Global IPv6 reachability - over an IPv6-unaware IPv4 MPLS core

3. IETF 60 draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt P P P P v6 IPv4 MPLS v6 v4 v6 MP-iBGP sessions CE 6PE 2001:0421:: 2001:0420:: 145.95.0.0 2001:0621:: 2001:0620:: Dual Stack IPv4-IPv6 routers IPv6 Provider Edge Router (6PE): Solution - use existing protocol elements in a specific combination to achieve interoperability - use same architecture as 2547 and IPv6 VPN I-D o MP-BGP reachability information advertised Edge-to-Edge o IPv4 MPLS tunnelling through the core -6PE advertises IPv6 NLRI with IPv4 Next Hop encoded as an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address

4. IETF 60 draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt History This has been in IETF for a long time Developed under ngtrans (WG document) Moved to v6ops Just moved to Routing Area

5. IETF 60 draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt v6ops and AD Consensus “In draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-analysis-03.txt we (v6ops) found that we need draft-ooms-v6ops bgp-tunnel-03.txt ("6PE/BGP-tunnel") to provide easier transition for IPv4 MPLS networks. Let me try to summarize the consensus: 1. Problem: to deploy IPv6 over an MPLS network, you'll have to either use manually configured tunnels, deploy IPv6 natively, or upgrade the whole signalling plane to support IPv6. The MPLS operators haven't been enthusiastic about the last option, and in many cases, the others aren't suitable either (if the network is extensive, or using vendors without sufficient native IPv6 capabilities). Therefore an automatic encapsulation in IPv4 MPLS network is needed. 2. Why this solution: there haven't been other proposed solutions to this problem (in v6ops). However, one should note that the generic provider-provisioned VPN framework provides a slightly more extensive means to solve this problem, but is overly complex to those who do not need to provide IPv6 VPN services (but just want to support IPv6 over their MPLS core). Further, draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel- 03.txt has been implemented, is interoperable, and has been already extensively deployed. 3. Is this ready: the document is ready to be progressed by the routing area for Standards Track -- it has recently been revised a couple of times to remove unneeded functionality that was present earlier on, and is now a very simple and compact specification.”

6. IETF 60 draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt Changes/Issues Changes: –Trimmed out the options that are not actually implemented/used (Single label, optional IPv4 header, other tunnelling techniques than MPLS…) –More specific on interop aspects (box using IPv6 Explicit-Null with box using arbitrary label) –Named the approach as “IPv6 Provider Edge (6PE)” Issues: –No known issues

7. IETF 60 draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03.txt Next Steps TBD