< draft-ietf-bess-ipv6-only-pe-design-00.txt		draft-ietf-bess-ipv6-only-pe-design-01.txt >
	BESS Working Group G. Mishra		BESS Working Group G. Mishra
	Internet-Draft Verizon Inc.		Internet-Draft Verizon Inc.
	Intended status: Best Current Practice M. Mishra		Intended status: Best Current Practice M. Mishra
	Expires: 15 February 2022 Cisco Systems		Expires: 8 September 2022 Cisco Systems
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Microsoft, Inc.		Microsoft, Inc.
	S. Madhavi		S. Madhavi
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	Q. Yang		Q. Yang
	Arista Networks		Arista Networks
	A. Simpson		A. Simpson
	Nokia		Nokia
	S. Chen		S. Chen
	Huawei Technologies		Huawei Technologies
	14 August 2021		7 March 2022
	IPv6-Only PE Design for IPv4-NLRI with IPv6-NH		IPv6-Only PE Design for IPv4-NLRI with IPv6-NH
	draft-ietf-bess-ipv6-only-pe-design-00		draft-ietf-bess-ipv6-only-pe-design-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or		As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or
	green field MPLS/SR core to an IPv6 transport, Multiprotocol BGP (MP-		green field MPLS/SR core to an IPv6 transport, Multiprotocol BGP (MP-
	BGP)now plays an important role in the transition of their Provider		BGP)now plays an important role in the transition of their Provider
	(P) core network as well as Provider Edge (PE) Edge network from IPv4		(P) core network as well as Provider Edge (PE) Edge network from IPv4
	to IPv6. Operators must be able to continue to support IPv4		to IPv6. Operators must be able to continue to support IPv4
	customers when both the Core and Edge networks are IPv6-Only.		customers when both the Core and Edge networks are IPv6-Only.
	This document details an important External BGP (eBGP) PE-CE Edge		This document details an important External BGP (eBGP) PE-CE Edge and
	IPv6-Only peering design that leverages the MP-BGP capability		Inter-AS IPv6-Only peering design that leverages the MP-BGP
	exchange by using IPv6 peering as pure transport, allowing both IPv4		capability exchange by using IPv6 peering as pure transport, allowing
	Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) and IPv6 Network Layer		both IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) and IPv6
	Reachability Information (NLRI)to be carried over the same (Border		Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI)to be carried over the
	Gateway Protocol) BGP TCP session. The design change provides the		same (Border Gateway Protocol) BGP TCP session. The design change
	same Dual Stacking functionality that exists today with separate IPv4		provides the same Dual Stacking functionality that exists today with
	and IPv6 BGP sessions as we have today. With this design change from		separate IPv4 and IPv6 BGP sessions as we have today. With this
	a control plane perspective a single IPv6 is required for both IPv4		design change from a control plane perspective a single IPv6 is
	and IPv6 routing updates and from a data plane forwarindg perspective		required for both IPv4 and IPv6 routing updates and from a data plane
	an IPv6 address need only be configured on the PE and CE interface		forwarindg perspective an IPv6 address need only be configured on the
	for both IPv4 and IPv6 packet forwarding.		PE and CE interface for both IPv4 and IPv6 packet forwarding.
	This document provides a much needed solution for Internet Exchange		This document provides a much needed solution for Internet Exchange
	Point (IXP) that are facing IPv4 address depletion at large peering		Point (IXP) that are facing IPv4 address depletion at large peering
	points. With this design, IXP can now deploy PE-CE IPv6-Only eBGP		points. With this design, IXP can now deploy PE-CE IPv6-Only eBGP
	Edge peering design to eliminate IPv4 provisioning at the Edge. This		Edge or Inter-AS peering design to eliminate IPv4 provisioning at the
	core and edge IPv6-Only peering design paradigm change can apply to		Edge. This core and edge IPv6-Only peering design paradigm change
	any eBGP peering, public internet or private, which can be either		can apply to any eBGP peering, public internet or private, which can
	Core networks, Data Center networks, Access networks or can be any		be either Core networks, Data Center networks, Access networks or can
	eBGP peering scenario. This document provides vendor specific test		be any eBGP peering scenario. This document provides vendor specific
	cases for the IPv6-Only peering design as well as test results for		test cases for the IPv6-Only peering design as well as test results
	the five major vendors stakeholders in the routing and switching		for the five major vendors stakeholders in the routing and switching
	indusrty, Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei. With the test		indusrty, Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei. With the test
	results provided for the IPv6-Only Edge peering design, the goal is		results provided for the IPv6-Only Edge peering design, the goal is
	that all other vendors around the world that have not been tested		that all other vendors around the world that have not been tested
	will begin to adopt and implement this new Best Current Practice for		will begin to adopt and implement this new Best Current Practice for
	eBGP IPv6-Only Edge peering.		eBGP IPv6-Only Edge peering.
	As this issue with IXP IPv4 address depletion is a critical issue		As this issue with IXP IPv4 address depletion is a critical issue
	around the world, it is imperative for an immediate solution that can		around the world, it is imperative for an immediate solution that can
	be implemented quickly. This Best Current Practice IPv6-only eBGP		be implemented quickly. This Best Current Practice IPv6-only eBGP
	peering design specification will help proliferate IPv6-Only		peering design specification will help proliferate IPv6-Only
	skipping to change at page 2, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 39 ¶
	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 15 February 2022.		This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 September 2022.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2022 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
	and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components		and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
	extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text		extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
	as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are		described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
	provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.		provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. IPv6-Only Edge Peering Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. IPv6-Only Edge Peering Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.2. IPv6-Only PE-CE Design Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.2. IPv6-Only PE-CE Design Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.3. IPv6-Only Edge Peering Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4.3. IPv6-Only Edge Peering Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4.3.1. IPv6-Only Edge Peering Packet Walk . . . . . . . . . 9		4.3.1. IPv6-Only Edge Peering Packet Walk . . . . . . . . . 9
	4.3.2. 6to4 Softwire IPv4-Only Core packet walk . . . . . . 9		4.3.2. 6to4 Softwire IPv4-Only Core packet walk . . . . . . 10
	4.3.3. 4to6 Softwire IPv6-Only Core packet walk . . . . . . 11		4.3.3. 4to6 Softwire IPv6-Only Core packet walk . . . . . . 11
	4.4. RFC5549 and RFC8950 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		4.4. RFC5549 and RFC8950 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	4.4.1. IPv6-Only Edge Peering design next-hop encoding . . . 14		4.4.1. IPv6-Only Edge Peering design next-hop encoding . . . 14
	4.4.2. RFC8950 updates to RFC5549 applicability . . . . . . 14		4.4.2. RFC8950 updates to RFC5549 applicability . . . . . . 14
	5. IPv6-Only Design Edge E2E Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		5. IPv6-Only PE Design Edge and Inter-AS Options E2E Test
			Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	5.1. Test-1 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv4-Only		5.1. Test-1 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv4-Only
	Core(6PE), 6to4 softwire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Core(6PE), 6to4 softwire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	5.2. Test-2 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only Core, 6to4		5.2. Test-2 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only Core, 6to4
	Softwire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Softwire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	5.3. Test-3 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv6-Only		5.3. Test-3 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv6-Only
	Core (4PE), 4to6 Softwire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		Core, 4to6 Softwire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	5.4. Test-4 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core, 4to6		5.4. Test-4 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core, 4to6
	Softwire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		Softwire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	5.5. IPv6-Only PE-CE Operational Considerations Testing . . . 19		5.5. Test-5 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv4-Only
	6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		Core(6PE), 6to4 softwire -Inter-AS Option-B . . . . . . 18
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		5.6. Test-6 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv4-Only
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		Core(6PE), 6to4 softwire -Inter-AS Option-C . . . . . . 19
	9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		5.7. Test-7 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only, 6to4
	10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		softwire -Inter-AS Option-B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		5.8. Test-8 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only Core, 6to4
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		softwire -Inter-AS Option-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		5.9. Test-9 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv6-Only
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23		Core, 4to6 softwire -Inter-AS Option-B . . . . . . . . . 20
			5.10. Test-10 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv6-Only
			Core, 4to6 softwire -Inter-AS Option-C . . . . . . . . . 21
			5.11. Test-11 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core, 4to6
			softwire -Inter-AS Option-B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
			5.12. Test-12 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core, 4to6
			softwire -Inter-AS Option-C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
			5.13. IPv6-Only PE-CE Operational Considerations Testing . . . 22
			6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
			7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
			8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
			9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
			10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
			11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
			11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
			11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or		As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or
	green field MPLS/SR core to an IPv6 transport such as MPLS LDPv6, SR-		green field MPLS/SR core to an IPv6 transport such as MPLS LDPv6, SR-
	MPLSv6 or SRv6, Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) now plays an important		MPLSv6 or SRv6, Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) now plays an important
	role in the transition of the Provider (P) core networks and Provider		role in the transition of the Provider (P) core networks and Provider
	Edge (PE) edge networks from IPv4 to IPv6. Operators have a		Edge (PE) edge networks from IPv4 to IPv6. Operators have a
	requirement to support IPv4 customers and must be able to support		requirement to support IPv4 customers and must be able to support
	IPv4 address family and Sub-Address-Family Virtual Private Network		IPv4 address family and Sub-Address-Family Virtual Private Network
	(VPN)-IPv4, and Multicast VPN IPv4 customers.		(VPN)-IPv4, and Multicast VPN IPv4 customers.
	IXP are also facing IPv4 address depletion at their peering points,		IXP are also facing IPv4 address depletion at their peering points,
	which are large Layer 2 transit backbones that service providers peer		which are large Layer 2 transit backbones that service providers peer
	and exchange IPv4 and IPv6 Network Layer Reachability Information		and exchange IPv4 and IPv6 Network Layer Reachability Information
	(NLRI). Today, these transit exchange points are Dual Stacked. With		(NLRI). Today, these transit exchange points are Dual Stacked. With
	this IPv6-only BGP peering design, only IPv6 is configured on the PE-		this IPv6-only BGP peering design, only IPv6 is configured on the PE-
	CE interface, the Provider Edge (PE) - Customer Edge (CE), the IPv6		CE interface, the Provider Edge (PE) - Customer Edge (CE), or Inter-
	BGP peer is now used to carry IPv4 (Network Layer Reachability		AS ASBR (Autonomous System Boundary Router) to ASBR (Autonomous
	Information) NLRI over an IPv6 next hop using IPv6 next hop encoding		System Boundary Router) PE-PE Provider Edge (PE) - Provider Edge
	defined in [RFC8950], while continuing to forward both IPv4 and IPv6		(PE), the IPv6 BGP peer is now used to carry IPv4 (Network Layer
	packets. In the framework of this design the PE is no longer Dual		Reachability Information) NLRI over an IPv6 next hop using IPv6 next
	Stacked. However in the case of the CE, PE-CE link CE side of the		hop encoding defined in [RFC8950], while continuing to forward both
	link is no longer Dual Stacked, however all other internal links		IPv4 and IPv6 packets. In the framework of this design the PE is no
	within the CE domain may or maynot be Dual stacked.		longer Dual Stacked. However in the case of the CE, PE-CE link CE
			side of the link is no longer Dual Stacked, however all other
			internal links within the CE domain may or maynot be Dual stacked.
			In the Inter-AS case the ASBR-ASBR PE-PE peering all peerings would
			be now IPv6-Only for all Inter-AS options Peering Option-A, Option-B,
			Option-AB and Option-C per [RFC4364]. We now refer to this PE as an
			"IPv6-Only PE" using the IPv6-Only PE Design framework.
	MP-BGP specifies that the set of usable next-hop address families is		MP-BGP specifies that the set of usable next-hop address families is
	determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent		determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent
	Address Family Identifier (SAFI). Historically the AFI/SAFI		Address Family Identifier (SAFI). Historically the AFI/SAFI
	definitions for the IPv4 address family only have provisions for		definitions for the IPv4 address family only have provisions for
	advertising a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv4 protocol when		advertising a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv4 protocol when
	advertising IPv4 or VPN-IPv4. [RFC8950] specifies the extensions		advertising IPv4 or VPN-IPv4. [RFC8950] specifies the extensions
	necessary to allow advertising IPv4 NLRI, Virtual Private Network		necessary to allow advertising IPv4 NLRI, Virtual Private Network
	Unicast (VPN-IPv4) NLRI, Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN-		Unicast (VPN-IPv4) NLRI, Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN-
	IPv4) NLRI with a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol.		IPv4) NLRI with a Next Hop address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 32 ¶
	of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the address of the Next Hop for		of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the address of the Next Hop for
	IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to belong to either the IPv4 or the IPv6		IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to belong to either the IPv4 or the IPv6
	protocol, the encoding of the Next Hop information to determine which		protocol, the encoding of the Next Hop information to determine which
	of the protocols the address belongs to, and a new BGP Capability		of the protocols the address belongs to, and a new BGP Capability
	allowing MP-BGP peers to dynamically discover whether they can		allowing MP-BGP peers to dynamically discover whether they can
	exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN- IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop.		exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN- IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop.
	With the new extensions defined in [RFC8950] supporting NLRI and next		With the new extensions defined in [RFC8950] supporting NLRI and next
	hop address family mismatch, the BGP peer session can now be treated		hop address family mismatch, the BGP peer session can now be treated
	as a pure TCP transport and carry both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI at the		as a pure TCP transport and carry both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI at the
	Provider Edge (PE) - Customer Edge (CE) over a single IPv6 TCP		Provider Edge (PE) - Customer Edge (CE) or Inter-AS ASBR to ASBR PE-
	session. This allows for the elimination of dual stack from the PE-		PE over a single IPv6 TCP session. This allows for the elimination
	CE peering point, and now enable the peering to be IPv6-ONLY. The		of dual stack from the PE-CE and Inter-AS ASBR-ASBR PE-PE peering
	elimination of IPv4 on the PE-CE peering points translates into OPEX		point, and now enable the peering to be IPv6-ONLY. The elimination
	expenditure savings of point-to-point infrastructure links as well as		of IPv4 on the PE-CE and Inter-AS ASBR-ASBR PE-PE peering points
	/31 address space savings and administration and network management		translates into OPEX expenditure savings of point-to-point
	of both IPv4 and IPv6 BGP peers. This reduction decreases the number		infrastructure links as well as /31 address space savings and
	of PE-CE BGP peers by fifty percent, which is a tremendous cost		administration and network management of both IPv4 and IPv6 BGP
	savings for operators.		peers. This reduction decreases the number of PE-CE BGP peers by
			fifty percent, which is a tremendous cost savings for operators.
	While the savings exists at the Edge eBGP PE-CE peering, on the core		While the savings exists at the Edge eBGP PE-CE peering, on the core
	side PE to Route Reflector (RR) peering carrying <AFI/SAFI> IPv4		side PE to Route Reflector (RR) peering carrying <AFI/SAFI> IPv4
	<1/1>, VPN-IPV4 <1/128>, and Multicasat VPN <1/129>, there is no		<1/1>, VPN-IPV4 <1/128>, and Multicasat VPN <1/129>, there is no
	savings as the Provider (P) Core is IPv6 Only and thus can only have		savings as the Provider (P) Core is IPv6 Only and thus can only have
	an IPv6 peer and must use [RFC8950] extended next hop encoding to		an IPv6 peer and must use [RFC8950] extended next hop encoding to
	carrying IPv4 NLRI IPV4 <2/1>, VPN-IPV4 <2/128>, and Multicasat VPN		carrying IPv4 NLRI IPV4 <2/1>, VPN-IPV4 <2/128>, and Multicasat VPN
	<2/129> over an IPv6 next hop.		<2/129> over an IPv6 next hop.
			This IPv6-Only PE design is applicable to both PE-CE Edge over a
			IPv4-Only Core, IPv6-Only Core as well as Global table or VPN overlay
			scenario as well as all Inter-AS Options Option-A, Option-B, Option-
			AB and Option-C The following Address Family (AFI) / Subsequent
			Address Family (SAFI) will be tested with both IPv4-Only Core,
			IPv6-Only Core and Global Routing Table (GRT) and IP Virtual Private
			Network (VPN) [RFC4364]. <AFI/SAFI> IPv4 <1/1>, VPN-IPV4 <1/128>,
			and Multicasat VPN <1/129>.
	This document provides a much needed solution for Internet Exchange		This document provides a much needed solution for Internet Exchange
	Point (IXP) that are facing IPv4 address depletion at large peering		Point (IXP) that are facing IPv4 address depletion at large peering
	points. With this design, IXP can now use deploy PE-CE IPv6-Only		points. With this design, IXP can now use deploy PE-CE IPv6-Only
	eBGP Edge peering design to eliminate IPv4 provisioning at the Edge.		eBGP Edge and Inter-AS peering design to eliminate IPv4 provisioning
	This core and edge IPv6-Only peering design paradigm change can apply		at the PE Edge as well as PE Inter-AS. This core and edge IPv6-Only
	to any eBGP peering, public internet or private, which can be either		peering design paradigm change can apply to any eBGP peering, public
	Core networks, Data Center networks, Access networks or can be any		internet or private, which can be either Core networks, Data Center
	eBGP peering scenario. This document provides detailed vendor		networks, Access networks or can be any eBGP peering scenario. This
	specific test cases and test results for the IPv6-Only peering design		document provides detailed vendor specific test cases and test
	as well as successful test results between five major vendors		results for the IPv6-Only peering design as well as successful test
	stakeholders in the routing and switching indusrty, Cisco, Juniper,		results between five major vendors stakeholders in the routing and
	Arista, Nokia and Huawei. With the test results provided for the		switching indusrty, Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei. With
	IPv6-Only Edge peering design, the goal is that all other vendors		the test results provided for the IPv6-Only Edge peering design, the
	around the world that have not been tested will begin to adopt and		goal is that all other vendors around the world that have not been
	implement this new best practice for eBGP IPv6-Only Edge peering.		tested will begin to adopt and implement this new best practice for
			eBGP IPv6-Only Edge peering. This will give confidence to operators
			to start the proliferation of this IPv6-Only PE design.
	As this issue with IXP address depletion is a critical issue around		As this issue with IXP address depletion is a critical issue around
	the world, it is imperative for an immediate solution that can be		the world, it is imperative for an immediate solution that can be
	implemented quickly. This best practice IPv6-only eBGP peering		implemented quickly. This best practice IPv6-only eBGP peering
	design specification will help proliferate IPv6-Only deployments at		design specification will help proliferate IPv6-Only deployments at
	the eBGP Edge network peering points starting immediately at a		the eBGP Edge and Inter-AS network peering points starting
	minimum with operators around the world using Cisco, Juniper, Arista,		immediately at a minimum with operators around the world using Cisco,
	Nokia and Huawei.		Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei.
	2. Requirements Language		2. Requirements Language
	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.
	3. Terminology		3. Terminology
	skipping to change at page 15, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 24 ¶
	* SAFI = 128 or 129		* SAFI = 128 or 129
	* Length of Next Hop Address = 24 or 48		* Length of Next Hop Address = 24 or 48
	* Next Hop Address = VPN-IPv6 address of next hop with an 8-octet RD		* Next Hop Address = VPN-IPv6 address of next hop with an 8-octet RD
	set to zero (potentially followed by the link-local VPN-IPv6		set to zero (potentially followed by the link-local VPN-IPv6
	address of the next hop with an 8-octet RD is set to zero).		address of the next hop with an 8-octet RD is set to zero).
	* NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition		* NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition
	5. IPv6-Only Design Edge E2E Test Cases		5. IPv6-Only PE Design Edge and Inter-AS Options E2E Test Cases
	Proof of conept interoperability testing of the 4 test cases between		Proof of conept interoperability testing of the 4 test cases between
	the 5 vendors Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei.		the 5 vendors Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei.
			Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia, Huawei, platform, code revision and
			test results for all use cases
			Cisco: Edge Router- XR ASR 9910 IOS XR 7.4.1, Core Router- NCS 6000
			7.2.2, CRS-X 6.7.4
			Juniper: Edge Router- MX platform MX480, MX960, Core Router- PTX
			Platform PTX5000, PTC10K8 (JUNOS and EVO) Release 20.4R2
			Tested v4 edge over v6 core in a virtual setup using vMX platforrm
			and 20.4R2 and LDPv6 as underlay, but there were some data plane
			forwarding issues. Tested same setup on latest release 21.4 and it
			worked. Investigating what the minimum version is for this setup to
			work.
			Nokia: Edge and Core-7750 Service Router, Release R21
			Huawei: Edge and Core-VRPv8, Release VRP-V800R020C10
			Arista:
			Intra-AS tests PE-CE Edge Peering IPv4-Only Core, IPv6-Only Core,
			Global Table (GRT) and IP VPN
			AFI/SAFI IPv4-Unicast SAFI IPv6-Unicast SAFI
			IPv4 Core:
			Test-1 Global table (6PE)
			Test-2 IP VPN
			Global table IPv6
			IPv6 Core:
			Test-3 Global table
			Test-4 IP VPN
			Inter-AS Options tests IPv4-Only Core, IPv6-Only Core, Global
			Table (GRT) and IP VPN
			AFI/SAFI VPN and MVPN
			IPv4-Only Core
			Test-5 Global table 6PE Option-B
			Test-6 Global table 6PE Option-C
			Test-7 IP VPN Inter AS Option-B
			Test-8 IP VPN Inter AS Option-C
			IPv6-Only Core
			Test-9 Global table Option-B
			Test-10 Global table Option-C
			Test-11 IP VPN Inter AS Option-B
			Test-12 IP VPN Inter AS Option-C
	5.1. Test-1 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv4-Only Core(6PE),		5.1. Test-1 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv4-Only Core(6PE),
	6to4 softwire		6to4 softwire
	________		________
	IPv6-Only _____ / \ IPv6-Only		IPv6-Only _____ / \ IPv6-Only
	PE / CE / \__/ \___ PE / CE		PE / CE / \__/ \___ PE / CE
	+----+ +----+ / \ +------+ +-----+		+----+ +----+ / \ +------+ +-----+
	| | | | | |_ | | | |		| | | | | |_ | | | |
	| | | | | \ | | | |		| | | | | \ | | | |
	| CE |--| PE |--\ IPv4-Only Core |----| PE |---| CE |		| CE |--| PE |--\ IPv4-Only Core |----| PE |---| CE |
	| | | | \0=========Underlay =======0| | | | |		| | | | \0=========Underlay =======0| | | | |
	+----+ +----+ \ __/ +------+ +-----+		+----+ +----+ \ __/ +------+ +-----+
	IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS / SR domain / IPv6 BGP peer		IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS / SR domain / IPv6 BGP peer
	IPv4 forwarding \__ __ / IPv4 forwarding		IPv4 forwarding \__ __ / IPv4 forwarding
	IPv6 forwarding \_______/ \_____/ IPv6 forwarding		IPv6 forwarding \_______/ \_____/ IPv6 forwarding
	Figure 7: Test-1 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv4-Only		Figure 7: Test-1 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv4-Only
	Core (6PE)		Core (6PE)
	Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia, Huawei code and platform and test
	results.
	Cisco: Edge Router- XR ASR 9910 IOS XR 7.4.1, Core Router- NCS 6000
	7.2.2, CRS-X 6.7.4
	Juniper: Edge Router- MX platform MX480, MX960, Core Router- PTX
	Platform PTX5000, PTC10K8 (JUNOS and EVO) Release 20.4R2
	Tested v4 edge over v6 core in a virtual setup using vMX platforrm
	and 20.4R2 and LDPv6 as underlay, but there were some data plane
	forwarding issues. Tested same setup on latest release 21.4 and it
	worked. Investigating what the minimum version is for this setup to
	work.
	Arista:
	Nokia: Edge and Core-7750 Service Router, Release R21
	Huawei: Edge and Core-VRPv8, Release VRP-V800R020C10
	5.2. Test-2 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only Core, 6to4 Softwire		5.2. Test-2 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only Core, 6to4 Softwire
	________		________
	IPv6-Only _____ / \ IPv6-Only		IPv6-Only _____ / \ IPv6-Only
	PE / CE / \__/ \___ PE / CE		PE / CE / \__/ \___ PE / CE
	+----+ +----+ / \ +------+ +-----+		+----+ +----+ / \ +------+ +-----+
	| | | | | 0====VPN Overlay Tunnel ==0| | | | |		| | | | | 0====VPN Overlay Tunnel ==0| | | | |
	| | | | | \ | | | |		| | | | | \ | | | |
	| CE |--| PE |--\ IPv4-Only Core |----| PE |---| CE |		| CE |--| PE |--\ IPv4-Only Core |----| PE |---| CE |
	| | | | \0=========Underlay =======0| | | | |		| | | | \0=========Underlay =======0| | | | |
	+----+ +----+ \ __/ +------+ +-----+		+----+ +----+ \ __/ +------+ +-----+
	IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS / SR domain / IPv6 BGP peer		IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS / SR domain / IPv6 BGP peer
	IPv4 forwarding \__ __ / IPv4 forwarding		IPv4 forwarding \__ __ / IPv4 forwarding
	IPv6 forwarding \_______/ \_____/ IPv6 forwarding		IPv6 forwarding \_______/ \_____/ IPv6 forwarding
	Figure 8: Test-2 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only Core		Figure 8: Test-2 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only Core
	Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia, Huawei code and platform and test		5.3. Test-3 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv6-Only Core, 4to6
	results.		Softwire
	Cisco: Edge Router- XR ASR 9910 IOS XR 7.4.1, Core Router- NCS 6000
	7.2.2, CRS-X 6.7.4
	Juniper: Edge Router- MX platform MX480, MX960, Core Router- PTX
	Platform PTX5000, PTC10K8 (JUNOS and EVO) Release 20.4R2
	Tested v4 edge over v6 core in a virtual setup using vMX platforrm
	and 20.4R2 and LDPv6 as underlay, but there were some data plane
	forwarding issues. Tested same setup on latest release 21.4 and it
	worked. Investigating what the minimum version is for this setup to
	work.
	Arista:
	Nokia: Edge and Core-7750 Service Router, Release R21
	Huawei: Edge and Core-VRPv8, Release VRP-V800R020C10
	5.3. Test-3 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv6-Only Core
	(4PE), 4to6 Softwire
	________		________
	IPv6-Only _____ / \ IPv6-Only		IPv6-Only _____ / \ IPv6-Only
	PE / CE / \__/ \___ PE / CE		PE / CE / \__/ \___ PE / CE
	+----+ +----+ / \ +------+ +-----+		+----+ +----+ / \ +------+ +-----+
	| | | | | |_ | | | |		| | | | | |_ | | | |
	| | | | | \ | | | |		| | | | | \ | | | |
	| CE |--| PE |--\ IPv6-Only Core |----| PE |---| CE |		| CE |--| PE |--\ IPv6-Only Core |----| PE |---| CE |
	| | | | \0=========Underlay =======0| | | | |		| | | | \0=========Underlay =======0| | | | |
	+----+ +----+ \ __/ +------+ +-----+		+----+ +----+ \ __/ +------+ +-----+
	IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS / SR domain / IPv6 BGP peer		IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS / SR domain / IPv6 BGP peer
	IPv4 forwarding \__ __ / IPv4 forwarding		IPv4 forwarding \__ __ / IPv4 forwarding
	IPv6 forwarding \_______/ \_____/ IPv6 forwarding		IPv6 forwarding \_______/ \_____/ IPv6 forwarding
	Figure 9: Test-3 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv6-Only		Figure 9: Test-3 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv6-Only
	Core (4PE)		Core
	Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia, Huawei code and platform and test
	results.
	Cisco: Edge Router- XR ASR 9910 IOS XR 7.4.1, Core Router- NCS 6000
	7.2.2, CRS-X 6.7.4
	Juniper: Edge Router- MX platform MX480, MX960, Core Router- PTX
	Platform PTX5000, PTC10K8 (JUNOS and EVO) Release 20.4R2
	Tested v4 edge over v6 core in a virtual setup using vMX platforrm
	and 20.4R2 and LDPv6 as underlay, but there were some data plane
	forwarding issues. Tested same setup on latest release 21.4 and it
	worked. Investigating what the minimum version is for this setup to
	work.
	Arista:
	Nokia: Edge and Core-7750 Service Router, Release R21
	Huawei: Edge and Core-VRPv8, Release VRP-V800R020C10
	5.4. Test-4 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core, 4to6 Softwire		5.4. Test-4 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core, 4to6 Softwire
	________		________
	IPv6-Only _____ / \ IPv6-Only		IPv6-Only _____ / \ IPv6-Only
	PE / CE / \__/ \___ PE / CE		PE / CE / \__/ \___ PE / CE
	+----+ +----+ / \ +------+ +-----+		+----+ +----+ / \ +------+ +-----+
	| | | | | 0====VPN Overlay Tunnel ==0| | | | |		| | | | | 0====VPN Overlay Tunnel ==0| | | | |
	| | | | | \ | | | |		| | | | | \ | | | |
	| CE |--| PE |--\ IPv6-Only Core |----| PE |---| CE |		| CE |--| PE |--\ IPv6-Only Core |----| PE |---| CE |
	| | | | \0=========Underlay =======0| | | | |		| | | | \0=========Underlay =======0| | | | |
	+----+ +----+ \ __/ +------+ +-----+		+----+ +----+ \ __/ +------+ +-----+
	IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS / SR domain / IPv6 BGP peer		IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS / SR domain / IPv6 BGP peer
	IPv4 forwarding \__ __ / IPv4 forwarding		IPv4 forwarding \__ __ / IPv4 forwarding
	IPv6 forwarding \_______/ \_____/ IPv6 forwarding		IPv6 forwarding \_______/ \_____/ IPv6 forwarding
	Figure 10: Test-4 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core		Figure 10: Test-4 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core
	Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia, Huawei code and platform and test		5.5. Test-5 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv4-Only Core(6PE),
	results.		6to4 softwire -Inter-AS Option-B
	Cisco: Edge Router- XR ASR 9910 IOS XR 7.4.1, Core Router- NCS 6000		IPv6-Only __________ __________ IPv6-Only
	7.2.2, CRS-X 6.7.4		PE / CE / \ / \ PE / CE
			+--+ +----+ / \ / \ +--+ +--+
			| | | | | AS 1 \ | AS 2 \ | | | |
			| | | | | \ | \ | | | |
			|CE|-| PE |--| IPv4-Only Core|---| IPv4-Only Core|-|PE|-|CE|
			| | | | |0=Underlay==0 | |0==Underlay===0| | | | |
			+--+ +----+ \ / \ / +--+ +--+
			IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS/SR / \ MPLS/SR / IPv6 BGP peer
			IPv4 forwarding \_________/ \_________/ IPv4 forwarding
			IPv6 forwarding IPv6 forwarding
	Juniper: Edge Router- MX platform MX480, MX960, Core Router- PTX		Figure 11: Test-5 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over
	Platform PTX5000, PTC10K8 (JUNOS and EVO) Release 20.4R2		IPv4-Only Core (6PE) - Inter-AS Option-B
	Tested v4 edge over v6 core in a virtual setup using vMX platforrm		5.6. Test-6 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv4-Only Core(6PE),
	and 20.4R2 and LDPv6 as underlay, but there were some data plane		6to4 softwire -Inter-AS Option-C
	forwarding issues. Tested same setup on latest release 21.4 and it
	worked. Investigating what the minimum version is for this setup to
	work.
	Arista:		IPv6-Only __________ __________ IPv6-Only
			PE / CE / \ / \ PE / CE
			+--+ +----+ / \ / \ +--+ +--+
			| | | | | AS 1 \ | AS 2 \ | | | |
			| | | | | \ | \ | | | |
			|CE|-| PE |--| IPv4-Only Core|---| IPv4-Only Core|-|PE|-|CE|
			| | | | |0=Underlay==0 | |0==Underlay===0| | | | |
			+--+ +----+ \ / \ / +--+ +--+
			IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS/SR / \ MPLS/SR / IPv6 BGP peer
			IPv4 forwarding \_________/ \_________/ IPv4 forwarding
			IPv6 forwarding IPv6 forwarding
	Nokia: Edge and Core-7750 Service Router, Release R21		Figure 12: Test-6 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over
			IPv4-Only Core (6PE) - Inter-AS Option-C
	Huawei: Edge and Core-VRPv8, Release VRP-V800R020C10		5.7. Test-7 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only, 6to4 softwire -
			Inter-AS Option-B
	5.5. IPv6-Only PE-CE Operational Considerations Testing		IPv6-Only __________ __________ IPv6-Only
			PE / CE / \ / \ PE / CE
			+--+ +----+ / \ / \ +--+ +--+
			| | | | | AS 1 \ | AS 2 \ | | | |
			| | | | | \ | \ | | | |
			|CE|-| PE |--| IPv4-Only Core|---| IPv4-Only Core|-|PE|-|CE|
			| | | | |0=Underlay==0 | |0==Underlay===0| | | | |
			+--+ +----+ \ / \ / +--+ +--+
			IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS/SR / \ MPLS/SR / IPv6 BGP peer
			IPv4 forwarding \_________/ \_________/ IPv4 forwarding
			IPv6 forwarding IPv6 forwarding
			Figure 13: Test-7 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only Core -
			Inter-AS Option-B
			5.8. Test-8 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only Core, 6to4 softwire
			-Inter-AS Option-C
			IPv6-Only __________ __________ IPv6-Only
			PE / CE / \ / \ PE / CE
			+--+ +----+ / \ / \ +--+ +--+
			| | | | | AS 1 \ | AS 2 \ | | | |
			| | | | | \ | \ | | | |
			|CE|-| PE |--| IPv4-Only Core|---| IPv4-Only Core|-|PE|-|CE|
			| | | | |0=Underlay==0 | |0==Underlay===0| | | | |
			+--+ +----+ \ / \ / +--+ +--+
			IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS/SR / \ MPLS/SR / IPv6 BGP peer
			IPv4 forwarding \_________/ \_________/ IPv4 forwarding
			IPv6 forwarding IPv6 forwarding
			Figure 14: Test-8 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv4-Only Core -
			Inter-AS Option-C
			5.9. Test-9 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv6-Only Core, 4to6
			softwire -Inter-AS Option-B
			IPv6-Only __________ __________ IPv6-Only
			PE / CE / \ / \ PE / CE
			+--+ +----+ / \ / \ +--+ +--+
			| | | | | AS 1 \ | AS 2 \ | | | |
			| | | | | \ | \ | | | |
			|CE|-| PE |--| IPv6-Only Core|---| IPv6-Only Core|-|PE|-|CE|
			| | | | |0=Underlay==0 | |0==Underlay===0| | | | |
			+--+ +----+ \ / \ / +--+ +--+
			IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS/SR / \ MPLS/SR / IPv6 BGP peer
			IPv4 forwarding \_________/ \_________/ IPv4 forwarding
			IPv6 forwarding IPv6 forwarding
			Figure 15: Test-9 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over
			IPv6-Only Core - Inter- AS Option-B
			5.10. Test-10 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over IPv6-Only Core,
			4to6 softwire -Inter-AS Option-C
			IPv6-Only __________ __________ IPv6-Only
			PE / CE / \ / \ PE / CE
			+--+ +----+ / \ / \ +--+ +--+
			| | | | | AS 1 \ | AS 2 \ | | | |
			| | | | | \ | \ | | | |
			|CE|-| PE |--| IPv6-Only Core|---| IPv6-Only Core|-|PE|-|CE|
			| | | | |0=Underlay==0 | |0==Underlay===0| | | | |
			+--+ +----+ \ / \ / +--+ +--+
			IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS/SR / \ MPLS/SR / IPv6 BGP peer
			IPv4 forwarding \_________/ \_________/ IPv4 forwarding
			IPv6 forwarding IPv6 forwarding
			Figure 16: Test-10 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, Global Table over
			IPv6-Only Core - Inter-AS Option-C
			5.11. Test-11 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core, 4to6
			softwire -Inter-AS Option-B
			IPv6-Only __________ __________ IPv6-Only
			PE / CE / \ / \ PE / CE
			+--+ +----+ / \ / \ +--+ +--+
			| | | | | AS 1 \ | AS 2 \ | | | |
			| | | | | \ | \ | | | |
			|CE|-| PE |--| IPv6-Only Core|---| IPv6-Only Core|-|PE|-|CE|
			| | | | |0=Underlay==0 | |0==Underlay===0| | | | |
			+--+ +----+ \ / \ / +--+ +--+
			IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS/SR / \ MPLS/SR / IPv6 BGP peer
			IPv4 forwarding \_________/ \_________/ IPv4 forwarding
			IPv6 forwarding IPv6 forwarding
			Figure 17: Test-11 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core -
			Inter-AS Option-B
			5.12. Test-12 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core, 4to6
			softwire -Inter-AS Option-C
			IPv6-Only __________ __________ IPv6-Only
			PE / CE / \ / \ PE / CE
			+--+ +----+ / \ / \ +--+ +--+
			| | | | | AS 1 \ | AS 2 \ | | | |
			| | | | | \ | \ | | | |
			|CE|-| PE |--| IPv6-Only Core|---| IPv6-Only Core|-|PE|-|CE|
			| | | | |0=Underlay==0 | |0==Underlay===0| | | | |
			+--+ +----+ \ / \ / +--+ +--+
			IPv6 BGP peer \ MPLS/SR / \ MPLS/SR / IPv6 BGP peer
			IPv4 forwarding \_________/ \_________/ IPv4 forwarding
			IPv6 forwarding IPv6 forwarding
			Figure 18: Test-12 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE, VPN over IPv6-Only Core -
			Inter-AS Option-C
			5.13. IPv6-Only PE-CE Operational Considerations Testing
	Ping CE to PE when destination prefix is withdrawn		Ping CE to PE when destination prefix is withdrawn
	Traceroute CE to PE and test all ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 type codes		Traceroute CE to PE and test all ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 type codes
	+-------+ +-------+		+-------+ +-------+
	| | IPv6 Only | |		| | IPv6 Only | |
	| CE |----------------| PE |		| CE |----------------| PE |
	| | IPv6 BGP Peer | |		| | IPv6 BGP Peer | |
	+-------+ +-------+		+-------+ +-------+
	IPv4 forwarding IPv4 forwarding		IPv4 forwarding IPv4 forwarding
	IPv6 forwarding IPv6 forwarding		IPv6 forwarding IPv6 forwarding
	Figure 11: Ping and Trace Test Case		Figure 19: Ping and Trace Test Case
	Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia, Huawei code and platform and test
	results.
	Cisco: Edge Router- XR ASR 9910 IOS XR 7.4.1, Core Router- NCS 6000
	7.2.2, CRS-X 6.7.4
	Juniper: Edge Router- MX platform MX480, MX960, Core Router- PTX
	Platform PTX5000, PTC10K8 (JUNOS and EVO) Release 20.4R2
	Tested v4 edge over v6 core in a virtual setup using vMX platforrm
	and 20.4R2 and LDPv6 as underlay, but there were some data plane
	forwarding issues. Tested same setup on latest release 21.4 and it
	worked. Investigating what the minimum version is for this setup to
	work.
	Arista:
	Nokia: Edge and Core-7750 Service Router, Release R21
	Huawei: Edge and Core-VRPv8, Release VRP-V800R020C10
	6. Operational Considerations		6. Operational Considerations
	With a single IPv6 Peer carrying both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI there are		With a single IPv6 Peer carrying both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI there are
	some operational considerations in terms of what changes and what		some operational considerations in terms of what changes and what
	does not change.		does not change.
	What does not change with a single IPv6 transport peer carrying IPv4		What does not change with a single IPv6 transport peer carrying IPv4
	NLRI and IPv6 NLRI below:		NLRI and IPv6 NLRI below:
	skipping to change at page 22, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 25, line 45 ¶
	[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address		[RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address
	Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,		Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8277>.
	11.2. Informative References		11.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-idr-dynamic-cap]		[I-D.ietf-idr-dynamic-cap]
	Chen, E. and S. R. Sangli, "Dynamic Capability for BGP-4",		Chen, E. and S. R. Sangli, "Dynamic Capability for BGP-4",
	Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-		Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-
	cap-14, 5 December 2011, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/		cap-16, 21 October 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/
	draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-14.txt>.		draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-16.txt>.
	[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,		[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
	"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for		"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
	IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006,		IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4659>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4659>.
	[RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,		[RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk,
	R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route		R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route
	Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol		Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol
	Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual		Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual
End of changes. 37 change blocks.
	183 lines changed or deleted		321 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/