draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-05.txt   draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-06.txt 
Network Working Group J. Chroboczek Network Working Group J. Chroboczek
Internet-Draft IRIF, University of Paris Internet-Draft IRIF, University of Paris
Updates: 8966 (if approved) 9 June 2021 Updates: 8966 (if approved) 18 June 2021
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: 11 December 2021 Expires: 20 December 2021
IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop in the Babel routing protocol IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop in the Babel routing protocol
draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-05 draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-06
Abstract Abstract
This document defines an extension to the Babel routing protocol that This document defines an extension to the Babel routing protocol that
allows annoncing routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next-hop, allows annoncing routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next-hop,
which makes it possible for IPv4 traffic to flow through interfaces which makes it possible for IPv4 traffic to flow through interfaces
that have not been assigned an IPv4 address. that have not been assigned an IPv4 address. This document updates
RFC 8966.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 December 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 December 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 3, line 27 skipping to change at page 3, line 27
We call a route towards an IPv4 prefix that uses an IPv6 next hop a We call a route towards an IPv4 prefix that uses an IPv6 next hop a
"v4-via-v6" route. This document describes an extension that allows "v4-via-v6" route. This document describes an extension that allows
the Babel routing protocol [RFC8966] to announce v4-via-v6 routes the Babel routing protocol [RFC8966] to announce v4-via-v6 routes
across interfaces that have no IPv4 addresses assigned. Section 3 across interfaces that have no IPv4 addresses assigned. Section 3
describes procedures that ensure that all routers can originate describes procedures that ensure that all routers can originate
ICMPv4 packets, even if they have not been assigned any IPv4 ICMPv4 packets, even if they have not been assigned any IPv4
addresses. addresses.
The extension described in this document is inspired by a previously The extension described in this document is inspired by a previously
defined extension to the BGP protocol [RFC5549]. defined extension to the BGP protocol [RFC5549]. This document
updates [RFC8966].
1.1. Specification of Requirements 1.1. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Protocol operation 2. Protocol operation
skipping to change at page 5, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
2.4. Other TLVs 2.4. Other TLVs
The only other TLVs defined by [RFC8966] that carry an AE field are The only other TLVs defined by [RFC8966] that carry an AE field are
Next Hop and TLV. Next Hop and IHU TLVs MUST NOT carry the AE 4 (v4- Next Hop and TLV. Next Hop and IHU TLVs MUST NOT carry the AE 4 (v4-
via-v6). via-v6).
3. ICMPv4 and PMTU discovery 3. ICMPv4 and PMTU discovery
The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv4, or simply ICMP) The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv4, or simply ICMP)
[RFC792] is a protocol related to IPv4 that is primarily used to [RFC0792] is a protocol related to IPv4 that is primarily used to
carry diagnostic and debugging information. ICMPv4 packets may be carry diagnostic and debugging information. ICMPv4 packets may be
originated by end hosts (e.g., the "destination unreachable, port originated by end hosts (e.g., the "destination unreachable, port
unreachable" ICMPv4 packet), but they may also be originated by unreachable" ICMPv4 packet), but they may also be originated by
intermediate routers (e.g., most other kinds of "destination intermediate routers (e.g., most other kinds of "destination
unreachable" packets). unreachable" packets).
Some protocols deployed in the Internet rely on ICMPv4 packets sent Some protocols deployed in the Internet rely on ICMPv4 packets sent
by intermediate routers. Most notably, path MTU Discovery (PMTUd) by intermediate routers. Most notably, path MTU Discovery (PMTUd)
[RFC1191] is an algorithm executed by end hosts to discover the [RFC1191] is an algorithm executed by end hosts to discover the
maximum packet size that a route is able to carry. While there exist maximum packet size that a route is able to carry. While there exist
skipping to change at page 9, line 17 skipping to change at page 9, line 17
This protocol extension was originally designed, described and This protocol extension was originally designed, described and
implemented in collaboration with Theophile Bastian. Margaret Cullen implemented in collaboration with Theophile Bastian. Margaret Cullen
pointed out the issues with ICMP and helped coin the phrase "v4-via- pointed out the issues with ICMP and helped coin the phrase "v4-via-
v6". The author is also indebted to Donald Eastlake, Toke Hoiland- v6". The author is also indebted to Donald Eastlake, Toke Hoiland-
Jorgensen, and David Schinazi. Jorgensen, and David Schinazi.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8966] Chroboczek, J. and D. Schinazi, "The Babel Routing [RFC8966] Chroboczek, J. and D. Schinazi, "The Babel Routing
Protocol", RFC 8966, DOI 10.17487/RFC8966, January 2021, Protocol", RFC 8966, DOI 10.17487/RFC8966, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8966>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8966>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 13 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/