idnits 2.17.1 draft-mishra-bess-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-use-cases-09.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC8950], [RFC5565]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 19, 2021) is 1105 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC4291' is defined on line 394, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4364' is defined on line 398, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5492' is defined on line 407, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8277' is defined on line 415, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-idr-dynamic-cap' is defined on line 421, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4659' is defined on line 426, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4798' is defined on line 438, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4925' is defined on line 444, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6513' is defined on line 464, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6514' is defined on line 468, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC8126' is defined on line 473, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-14 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5549 (Obsoleted by RFC 8950) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 13 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 BESS Working Group G. Mishra 3 Internet-Draft Verizon Inc. 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice M. Mishra 5 Expires: September 20, 2021 Cisco Systems 6 J. Tantsura 7 L. Wang 8 Juniper Networks, Inc. 9 Q. Yang 10 Arista Networks 11 A. Simpson 12 Nokia 13 S. Chen 14 Huawei Technologies 15 March 19, 2021 17 IPv4 NLRI with IPv6 Next Hop Use Cases 18 draft-mishra-bess-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-use-cases-09 20 Abstract 22 As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or 23 green field MPLS/SR core to an IPv6 transport, Multiprotocol BGP (MP- 24 BGP)now plays an important role in the transition of the core as well 25 as edge from IPv4 to IPv6. Operators can now continue to support 26 legacy IPv4, VPN-IPv4, and Multicast VPN-IPv4 customers. 28 This document describes the critical use case and OPEX savings of 29 being able to leverage the MP-BGP capability exchange usage as a pure 30 transport, allowing both IPv4 and IPv6 to be carried over the same 31 BGP TCP session. By doing so, allows for the elimination of Dual 32 Stacking on the PE-CE connections. Thus making the eBGP peering 33 IPv6-ONLY to now carry both IPv4 and IPv6 Network Layer Reachability 34 Information (NLRI). 36 This document now provides a solution for IXPs (Internet Exchange 37 points) that are facing IPv4 address depletion at these peering 38 points to use BGP-MP capability exchange defined in [RFC8950] to 39 carry IPv4 (Network Layer Reachability Information) NLRI in an IPv6 40 next hop using the [RFC5565] softwire mesh framework. 42 Status of This Memo 44 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 45 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 47 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 48 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 49 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 50 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 52 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 53 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 54 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 55 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 57 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 20, 2021. 59 Copyright Notice 61 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 62 document authors. All rights reserved. 64 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 65 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 66 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 67 publication of this document. Please review these documents 68 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 69 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 70 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 71 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 72 described in the Simplified BSD License. 74 Table of Contents 76 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 77 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 3. eBGP PE-CE IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI over IPv6 Next Hop Peer Use 79 Case Interop Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 4. RFC 8950 updates to RFC 5549 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 5. Operational Improvements with Single IPv6 transport peer . . 7 82 6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 83 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 84 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 85 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 86 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 87 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 88 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 89 Appendix A. IPv4 NLRI IPv6 Next Hop Vendor Testing . . . . . . . 11 90 A.1. Router and Switch Vendors Support and Quality Assurance 91 Engineering Lab Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 92 A.2. Router and Switch Vendors Interoperability Lab Results. . 12 93 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 95 1. Introduction 97 As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or 98 green field MPLS/SR core to an IPv6 transport such as MPLS LDPv6, SR- 99 MPLSv6 or SRv6, Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) now plays an important 100 role in the transition of the core from IPv4 to IPv6. Operators can 101 now continue to support legacy IPv4 address family and Sub-Address- 102 Family VPN-IPv4, and Multicast VPN IPv4 customers. 104 IXPs (Internet Exchange points) are also facing IPv4 address 105 depletion at their peering points, which are large Layer 2 transit 106 backbones that service providers peer and exchange IPv4 and IPv6 107 (Network Layer Reachability Information) NLRI. Today these transit 108 exchange points are dual stacked. One proposal to solve this issue 109 is to use [RFC8950] to carry IPv4 (Network Layer Reachability 110 Information) NLRI in an IPv6 next hop and eliminate the IPv4 peering 111 completely using the concept of [RFC8950] softwire mesh framework. 112 So now with the MP-BGP reach capability exchanged over IPv4 AFI over 113 IPv6 next hop peer we can now advertise IPv4(Network Layer 114 Reachability Information) NLRI over IPv6 peering using the [RFC5565] 115 softwire mesh framework. 117 Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) specifies that the set of usable next-hop 118 address families is determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) 119 and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI). Historically 120 the AFI/SAFI definitions for the IPv4 address family only have 121 provisions for advertising a Next Hop address that belongs to the 122 IPv4 protocol when advertising IPv4 or VPN-IPv4 Network Layer 123 Reachability Information (NLRI). [RFC8950] specifies the extensions 124 necessary to allow advertising IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a Next 125 Hop address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. This comprises an 126 extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the address of the 127 Next Hop for IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6 128 Protocol. [RFC8950] defines the encoding of the Next Hop to 129 determine which of the protocols the address actually belongs to, and 130 a new BGP Capability allowing MP-BGP Peers to dynamically discover 131 whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN-IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 132 Next Hop. 134 With this new MP-BGP capability exchange allows the BGP peering 135 session to act as a pure transport to allow the session to carry 136 Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family 137 Identifier (SAFI) for both IPv4 and IPv6. 139 Furthermore, a number of these existing AFI/SAFIs allow the Next Hop 140 to belong to either the IPv4 Network Layer Protocol or the IPv6 141 Network Layer Protocol, and specify the encoding of the Next Hop 142 information to determine which of the protocols the address actually 143 belongs to. For example, [RFC4684] allows the Next Hop address to be 144 either IPv4 or IPv6 and states that the Next Hop field address shall 145 be interpreted as an IPv4 address whenever the length of Next Hop 146 address is 4 octets, and as an IPv6 address whenever the length of 147 the Next Hop address is 16 octets. 149 The current specification for carrying IPv4 Network Layer 150 Reachability Information (NLRI) of a given address family via a Next 151 Hop of a different address family is now defined in [RFC8950], and 152 specifies the extensions necessary to do so. This comprises an 153 extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the address of the 154 Next Hop for IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to belong to either the IPv4 155 or the IPv6 protocol, the encoding of the Next Hop information to 156 determine which of the protocols the address actually belongs to, and 157 a new BGP Capability allowing MP-BGP peers to dynamically discover 158 whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN- IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 159 Next Hop. 161 With the new extensions defined in [RFC8950] supporting Network Layer 162 Reachability Information (NLRI) and next hop address family mismatch, 163 the BGP peer session can now be treated as a pure transport and carry 164 both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI at the PE-CE edge over a single IPv6 TCP 165 session. This allows for the elimination of dual stack from the PE- 166 CE peering point, and now allow the peering to be IPv6-ONLY. The 167 elimination of IPv4 on the PE-CE peering points translates into OPEX 168 expenditure savings of point-to-point infrastructure links as well as 169 /31 address space savings and administration and network management 170 of both IPv4 and IPv6 BGP peers. This reduction decreases the number 171 of PE-CE BGP peers by fifty percent, which is a tremendous cost 172 savings for all Enterprises and Service Providers. 174 While the savings exists at the PE-CE edge, on the core side PE to 175 Route Reflector peering carrying IPv4 <1/1>, VPN-IPV4 176 <1/128>, and Multicasat VPN <1/129>, the cost savings nets to a break 177 even to be the same as with an IPV4 Core carrying IPv6 NLRI IPV6 178 <2/1>, VPN-IPV6 <2/128>, and Multicasat VPN <2/129>. 180 This document also provides a possible solution for IXPs (Internet 181 Exchange points) that are facing IPv4 address depletion at these 182 peering points to use BGP-MP capability exchange defined in [RFC8950] 183 to carry IPv4 (Network Layer Reachability Information) NLRI in an 184 IPv6 next hop using the [RFC5565] softwire mesh framework concept of 185 IPv6 NLRI edge over an IPv6 core. 187 2. Requirements Language 189 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 190 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 191 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 192 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 193 capitals, as shown here. 195 3. eBGP PE-CE IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI over IPv6 Next Hop Peer Use Case 196 Interop Testing 198 Today the IPv4 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI are carried over separate BGP 199 sessions based on the address family of the NLRI being transported. 201 The goal of this document is to provide operators interoperability 202 test results from external BGP PE-CE edge peering between vendors 203 Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei. The purpose of this 204 document is to prove test data to operators to show that all the 205 features and functionality of carrying IPv4 NLRI over a separate IPv4 206 peer that exists today is not only viable but recommended to be 207 carried over a single IPv6 peer along with IPv6 NLRI, with no loss of 208 features and functionality using [RFC8950] IPv6 next hop encoding. 210 The test results published from this document is to provide concrete 211 evidence that this is now the Best Practice for Edge peering. The 212 defacto standard for operators to now use a single IPv6 peer to carry 213 both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI. 215 With the use case defined in this document, IPv6 NLRI Unicast SAFI 216 along with now the IPv4 NLRI Unicast SAFI, can now being carried by 217 the sinlge transport style IPv6 next hop peer. 219 This document describes the use case of advertising with IPv4 NLRI 220 over IPv6 Next hop with MP_REACH_NLRI with: 222 o AFI = 1 224 o SAFI = 1 226 o Length of Next Hop Address = 16 or 32 228 o Next Hop Address = IPv6 address of next hop (potentially followed 229 by the link-local IPv6 address of the next hop). This field is to 230 be constructed as per Section 3 of [RFC2545]. 232 The BGP speaker receiving the advertisement MUST use the Length of 233 Next Hop Address field to determine which network-layer protocol the 234 next hop address belongs to. 236 Note that this method of using the Length of the Next Hop Address 237 field to determine which network-layer protocol the next hop address 238 belongs to (out of the set of protocols allowed by the AFI/SAFI 239 definition) is the same as used in [RFC4684] and [RFC6074]. 241 4. RFC 8950 updates to RFC 5549 243 This section describes the updates to [RFC8950] next hop encoding 244 from [RFC5549]. In [RFC5549] when AFI/SAFI 1/128 is used, the next- 245 hop address is encoded as an IPv6 address with a length of 16 or 32 246 bytes. To accommodate all existing implementations and bring 247 consistency with VPNv4oIPv4 and VPNv6oIPv6, this document modifies 248 how the next-hop address is encoded. The next-hop address is now 249 encoded as a VPN-IPv6 address with a length of 24 or 48 bytes 250 [RFC8950] (see Sections 3 and 6.2). This change addresses Erratum ID 251 5253 (Err5253). As all known and deployed implementations are 252 interoperable today and use the new proposed encoding, the change 253 does not break existing interoperability. 255 [RFC5549] next hop encoding of MP_REACH_NLRI with: 257 o AFI = 1 259 o SAFI = 1, 2, or 4 261 o Length of Next Hop Address = 16 or 32 263 o Next Hop Address = IPv6 address of next hop (potentially followed 264 by the link-local IPv6 address of the next hop). This field is to 265 be constructed as per Section 3 of [RFC2545]. 267 o NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition 269 It also allows advertising with [RFC4760] of an MP_REACH_NLRI with: 271 o AFI = 1 273 o SAFI = 128 or 129 275 o Length of Next Hop Address = 16 or 32 277 o NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition 279 [RFC8950] next hop encoding of MP_REACH_NLRI with: 281 o AFI = 1 283 o SAFI = 1, 2, or 4 284 o Length of Next Hop Address = 16 or 32 286 o Next Hop Address = IPv6 address of next hop (potentially followed 287 by the link-local IPv6 address of the next hop). This field is to 288 be constructed as per Section 3 of [RFC2545]. 290 o NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition 292 It also allows advertising with [RFC4760] of an MP_REACH_NLRI with: 294 o AFI = 1 296 o SAFI = 128 or 129 298 o Length of Next Hop Address = 24 or 48 300 o Next Hop Address = VPN-IPv6 address of next hop with an 8-octet RD 301 set to zero (potentially followed by the link-local VPN-IPv6 302 address of the next hop with an 8-octet RD is set to zero). 304 o NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition 306 5. Operational Improvements with Single IPv6 transport peer 308 As Enterprises and Service Providers migrate their IPv4 core to an 309 MPLS LDPv6 or SRv6 transport, they must continue to be able to 310 support legacy IPv4 customers. With the new extensions defined in 311 [RFC4760], supporting Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) 312 and next hop address family mismatch, the BGP peer session can now be 313 treated as a pure transport and carry both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI at the 314 PE-CE edge. This paves the way to now eliminate dual stacking on all 315 PE-CE peering points to customers making the peering IPv6 only. With 316 this change all IPv4 and IPv6 Network Layer Reachability Information 317 (NLRI) will now be carried over a single BGP session. This also 318 solves the dual stack issue with IXP (Internet Exchange Points) 319 having to maintain separate peering for both IPv4 and IPv6. From an 320 operations perspective the PE-CE edge peering will be drastically 321 simplified with the elimination of IPv4 peers yielding a reduction of 322 peers by 50 percent. From an operations perspective prior to 323 elimination of IPv4 peers an audit is recommended to identify and 324 IPv4 and IPv6 peering incongruencies that may exist and to rectify 325 prior to elimination of the IPv4 peers. No operational impacts or 326 issues are expected with this change. 328 6. Operational Considerations 330 With a sinlge IPv6 Peer carrying both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI there are 331 some operational considerations in terms of what changes and what 332 does not change. 334 What does not change with a single IPv6 transport peer carrying IPv4 335 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI below: 337 Routing Policy configuration is still separate for IPv4 and IPv6 338 configured by capability as previously 340 Layer 1, Layer 2 issues such as 1 way fiber or fiber cut will impact 341 both IPv4 and IPv6 as previously. 343 If the interface is admin down the IPv6 peer would go down and IPv4 344 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI would be withdrawn as previously. 346 What does change with a single IPv6 transport peer carrying IPv4 NLRI 347 and IPv6 NLRI below: 349 Physical interface is no longer dual stacked. Any change in IPv6 350 address or DAD state will impact both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI exchange 352 Single BFD session for both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI fate sharing as the 353 session is now tied to the transport which now is only IPv6 address 354 family 356 Both IPv4 and IPv6 peer now exists under the IPv4 address family 357 configuration 359 Fate sharing of IPv4 and IPv6 address family from a logical 360 perspective now carried over a single IPv6 peer 362 7. IANA Considerations 364 There are not any IANA considerations. 366 8. Security Considerations 368 The extensions defined in this document allow BGP to propagate 369 reachability information about IPv6 routes over an MPLS IPv4 core 370 network. As such, no new security issues are raised beyond those 371 that already exist in BGP-4 and use of MP-BGP for IPv6. The security 372 features of BGP and corresponding security policy defined in the ISP 373 domain are applicable. For the inter-AS distribution of IPv6 routes 374 according to case (a) of Section 4 of this document, no new security 375 issues are raised beyond those that already exist in the use of eBGP 376 for IPv6 [RFC2545]. 378 9. Acknowledgments 380 10. References 382 10.1. Normative References 384 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 385 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 386 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 387 . 389 [RFC2545] Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol 390 Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545, 391 DOI 10.17487/RFC2545, March 1999, 392 . 394 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 395 Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February 396 2006, . 398 [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private 399 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 400 2006, . 402 [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, 403 "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, 404 DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, 405 . 407 [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement 408 with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February 409 2009, . 411 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 412 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 413 May 2017, . 415 [RFC8277] Rosen, E., "Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address 416 Prefixes", RFC 8277, DOI 10.17487/RFC8277, October 2017, 417 . 419 10.2. Informative References 421 [I-D.ietf-idr-dynamic-cap] 422 Ramachandra, S. and E. Chen, "Dynamic Capability for BGP- 423 4", draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-14 (work in progress), 424 December 2011. 426 [RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur, 427 "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for 428 IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, DOI 10.17487/RFC4659, September 2006, 429 . 431 [RFC4684] Marques, P., Bonica, R., Fang, L., Martini, L., Raszuk, 432 R., Patel, K., and J. Guichard, "Constrained Route 433 Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol 434 Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual 435 Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4684, DOI 10.17487/RFC4684, 436 November 2006, . 438 [RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur, 439 "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 440 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798, 441 DOI 10.17487/RFC4798, February 2007, 442 . 444 [RFC4925] Li, X., Ed., Dawkins, S., Ed., Ward, D., Ed., and A. 445 Durand, Ed., "Softwire Problem Statement", RFC 4925, 446 DOI 10.17487/RFC4925, July 2007, 447 . 449 [RFC5549] Le Faucheur, F. and E. Rosen, "Advertising IPv4 Network 450 Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop", 451 RFC 5549, DOI 10.17487/RFC5549, May 2009, 452 . 454 [RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh 455 Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009, 456 . 458 [RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo, 459 "Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2 460 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074, 461 DOI 10.17487/RFC6074, January 2011, 462 . 464 [RFC6513] Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/ 465 BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February 466 2012, . 468 [RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP 469 Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP 470 VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012, 471 . 473 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 474 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 475 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 476 . 478 [RFC8950] Litkowski, S., Agrawal, S., Ananthamurthy, K., and K. 479 Patel, "Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability 480 Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop", RFC 8950, 481 DOI 10.17487/RFC8950, November 2020, 482 . 484 Appendix A. IPv4 NLRI IPv6 Next Hop Vendor Testing 486 IPv4 NLRI with IPv6 Next Hop encoding is supported for all BGP peers 487 both iBGP and eBGP. 489 This section details the vendor support QA testing of RFC 8950 Next 490 Hop Encoding for "PE-CE eBGP" using GUA (Global Unicast Address), 491 Link Local (LL) peering. This drafts goal is to first ensure that QA 492 testing of all features and functionality works with "eBGP PE-CE" use 493 case single peer carrying both IPv4 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI and that the 494 routing policy features are all still fully functionality do not 495 change. 497 A.1. Router and Switch Vendors Support and Quality Assurance 498 Engineering Lab Results. 500 +-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+ 501 | Vendor | PE-CE eBGP GUI | PE-CE eBGP LL | QA Tested | 502 +-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+ 503 | Cisco | *** | | | 504 | Juniper | *** | | | 505 | Nokia/ALU | *** | | | 506 | Arista | *** | | | 507 | Huawei | *** | | | 508 +-----------+----------------+---------------+-----------+ 510 Table 1: Vendor Support 512 A.2. Router and Switch Vendors Interoperability Lab Results. 514 This section details the vendor interoperability testing and support 515 of RFC5549 that all features and functionality works with "eBGP PE- 516 CE" use case with having a single peer carrying both IPv4 NLRI and 517 IPv6 NLRI and that the routing policy features are fully tested for 518 quality assurance. 520 +-----------+-------+---------+-----------+--------+--------+ 521 | Vendor | Cisco | Juniper | Nokia/ALU | Arista | Huawei | 522 +-----------+-------+---------+-----------+--------+--------+ 523 | Cisco | N/A | | | | | 524 | Juniper | | N/A | | | | 525 | Nokia/ALU | | | N/A | | | 526 | Arista | | | | N/A | | 527 | Huawei | | | | | N/A | 528 +-----------+-------+---------+-----------+--------+--------+ 530 Table 2: Vendor Interop 532 Authors' Addresses 534 Gyan Mishra 535 Verizon Inc. 537 Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com 539 Mankamana Mishra 540 Cisco Systems 541 821 Alder Drive, 542 MILPITAS CALIFORNIA 95035 544 Email: mankamis@cisco.com 546 Jeff Tantsura 547 Juniper Networks, Inc. 549 Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com 550 Lili Wang 551 Juniper Networks, Inc. 552 10 Technology Park Drive, 553 Westford MA 01886 554 US 556 Email: liliw@juniper.net 558 Qing Yang 559 Arista Networks 561 Email: qyang@arista.com 563 Adam Simpson 564 Nokia 566 Email: adam.1.simpson@nokia.com 568 Shuanglong Chen 569 Huawei Technologies 571 Email: chenshuanglong@huawei.com