path: root/doc/rfc/rfc4798.txt

Network Working Group                                       J. De Clercq
Request for Comments: 4798                                Alcatel-Lucent
Category: Standards Track                                        D. Ooms
                                                              OneSparrow
                                                              S. Prevost
                                                                      BT
                                                          F. Le Faucheur
                                                                   Cisco
                                                           February 2007


             Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using
                    IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document explains how to interconnect IPv6 islands over a
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)-enabled IPv4 cloud.  This
   approach relies on IPv6 Provider Edge routers (6PE), which are Dual
   Stack in order to connect to IPv6 islands and to the MPLS core, which
   is only required to run IPv4 MPLS.  The 6PE routers exchange the IPv6
   reachability information transparently over the core using the
   Multiprotocol Border Gateway Protocol (MP-BGP) over IPv4.  In doing
   so, the BGP Next Hop field is used to convey the IPv4 address of the
   6PE router so that dynamically established IPv4-signaled MPLS Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs) can be used without explicit tunnel
   configuration.












De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Requirements Language ......................................4
   2. Protocol Overview ...............................................4
   3. Transport over IPv4-signaled LSPs and IPv6 Label Binding ........5
   4. Crossing Multiple IPv4 Autonomous Systems .......................7
   5. Security Considerations ........................................10
   6. Acknowledgements ...............................................10
   7. References .....................................................11
      7.1. Normative References ......................................11
      7.2. Informative References ....................................11

1.  Introduction

   There are several approaches for providing IPv6 connectivity over an
   MPLS core network [RFC4029] including (i) requiring that MPLS
   networks support setting up IPv6-signaled Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
   and establish IPv6 connectivity by using those LSPs, (ii) use
   configured tunneling over IPv4-signaled LSPs, or (iii) use the IPv6
   Provider Edge (6PE) approach defined in this document.

   The 6PE approach is required as an alternative to the use of standard
   tunnels.  It provides a solution for an MPLS environment where all
   tunnels are established dynamically, thereby addressing environments
   where the effort to configure and maintain explicitly configured
   tunnels is not acceptable.

   This document specifies operations of the 6PE approach for
   interconnection of IPv6 islands over an IPv4 MPLS cloud.  The
   approach requires that the edge routers connected to IPv6 islands be
   Dual Stack Multiprotocol-BGP-speaking routers [RFC4760], while the
   core routers are only required to run IPv4 MPLS.  The approach uses
   MP-BGP over IPv4, relies on identification of the 6PE routers by
   their IPv4 address, and uses IPv4-signaled MPLS LSPs that do not
   require any explicit tunnel configuration.

   Throughout this document, the terminology of [RFC2460] and [RFC4364]
   is used.

   In this document an 'IPv6 island' is a network running native IPv6 as
   per [RFC2460].  A typical example of an IPv6 island would be a
   customer's IPv6 site connected via its IPv6 Customer Edge (CE) router
   to one (or more) Dual Stack Provider Edge router(s) of a Service
   Provider.  These IPv6 Provider Edge routers (6PE) are connected to an
   IPv4 MPLS core network.





De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


            +--------+
            |site A  CE---+  +-----------------+
            +--------+    |  |                 |       +--------+
                         6PE-+  IPv4 MPLS core +-6PE--CE site C |
            +--------+    |  |                 |       +--------+
            |site B  CE---+  +-----------------+
            +--------+

             IPv6 islands          IPv4 cloud       IPv6 island
            <-------------><---------------------><-------------->

                                  Figure 1

   The interconnection method described in this document typically
   applies to an Internet Service Provider (ISP) that has an IPv4 MPLS
   network, that is familiar with BGP (possibly already offering
   BGP/MPLS VPN services), and that wants to offer IPv6 services to some
   of its customers.  However, the ISP may not (yet) want to upgrade its
   network core to IPv6, nor use only IPv6-over-IPv4 tunneling.  With
   the 6PE approach described here, the provider only has to upgrade
   some Provider Edge (PE) routers to Dual Stack operations so that they
   behave as 6PE routers (and route reflectors if those are used for the
   exchange of IPv6 reachability among 6PE routers) while leaving the
   IPv4 MPLS core routers untouched.  These 6PE routers provide
   connectivity to IPv6 islands.  They may also provide other services
   simultaneously (IPv4 connectivity, IPv4 L3VPN services, L2VPN
   services, etc.).  Also with the 6PE approach, no tunnels need to be
   explicitly configured, and no IPv4 headers need to be inserted in
   front of the IPv6 packets between the customer and provider edge.

   The ISP obtains IPv6 connectivity to its peers and upstreams using
   means outside of the scope of this document, and its 6PE routers
   readvertise it over the IPv4 MPLS core with MP-BGP.

   The interface between the edge router of the IPv6 island (Customer
   Edge (CE) router) and the 6PE router is a native IPv6 interface which
   can be physical or logical.  A routing protocol (IGP or EGP) may run
   between the CE router and the 6PE router for the distribution of IPv6
   reachability information.  Alternatively, static routes and/or a
   default route may be used on the 6PE router and the CE router to
   control reachability.  An IPv6 island may connect to the provider
   network over more than one interface.

   The 6PE approach described in this document can be used for customers
   that already have an IPv4 service from the network provider and
   additionally require an IPv6 service, as well as for customers that
   require only IPv6 connectivity.




De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


   The scenario is also described in [RFC4029].

   Note that the 6PE approach specified in this document provides global
   IPv6 reachability.  Support of IPv6 VPNs is not within the scope of
   this document and is addressed in [RFC4659].

   Deployment of the 6PE approach over an existing IPv4 MPLS cloud does
   not require an introduction of new mechanisms in the core (other than
   potentially those described at the end of Section 3 for dealing with
   dynamic MTU discovery).  Configuration and operations of the 6PE
   approach have a lot of similarities with the configuration and
   operations of an IPv4 VPN service ([RFC4364]) or IPv6 VPN service
   ([RFC4659]) over an IPv4 MPLS core because they all use MP-BGP to
   distribute non-IPv4 reachability information for transport over an
   IPv4 MPLS Core.  However, the configuration and operations of the 6PE
   approach is somewhat simpler, since it does not involve all the VPN
   concepts such as Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRFs) tables.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Protocol Overview

   Each IPv6 site is connected to at least one Provider Edge router that
   is located on the border of the IPv4 MPLS cloud.  We call such a
   router a 6PE router.  The 6PE router MUST be dual stack IPv4 and
   IPv6.  The 6PE router MUST be configured with at least one IPv4
   address on the IPv4 side and at least one IPv6 address on the IPv6
   side.  The configured IPv4 address needs to be routable in the IPv4
   cloud, and there needs to be a label bound via an IPv4 label
   distribution protocol to this IPv4 route.

   As a result of this, every considered 6PE router knows which MPLS
   label to use to send packets to any other 6PE router.  Note that an
   MPLS network offering BGP/MPLS IP VPN services already fulfills these
   requirements.

   No extra routes need to be injected in the IPv4 cloud.

   We call the 6PE router receiving IPv6 packets from an IPv6 site an
   ingress 6PE router (relative to these IPv6 packets).  We call a 6PE
   router forwarding IPv6 packets to an IPv6 site an egress 6PE router
   (relative to these IPv6 packets).





De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


   Interconnecting IPv6 islands over an IPv4 MPLS cloud takes place
   through the following steps:

   1. Exchange IPv6 reachability information among 6PE routers with MP-
      BGP [RFC2545]:

      The 6PE routers MUST exchange the IPv6 prefixes over MP-BGP
      sessions as per [RFC2545] running over IPv4.  The MP-BGP Address
      Family Identifier (AFI) used MUST be IPv6 (value 2).  In doing so,
      the 6PE routers convey their IPv4 address as the BGP Next Hop for
      the advertised IPv6 prefixes.  The IPv4 address of the egress 6PE
      router MUST be encoded as an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address in the BGP
      Next Hop field.  This encoding is consistent with the definition
      of an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address in [RFC4291] as an "address type
      used to represent the address of IPv4 nodes as IPv6 addresses".
      In addition, the 6PE MUST bind a label to the IPv6 prefix as per
      [RFC3107].  The Subsequence Address Family Identifier (SAFI) used
      in MP-BGP MUST be the "label" SAFI (value 4) as defined in
      [RFC3107].  Rationale for this and label allocation policies are
      discussed in Section 3.

   2. Transport IPv6 packets from the ingress 6PE router to the egress
      6PE router over IPv4-signaled LSPs:

      The ingress 6PE router MUST forward IPv6 data over the IPv4-
      signaled LSP towards the egress 6PE router identified by the IPv4
      address advertised in the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address of the BGP Next
      Hop for the corresponding IPv6 prefix.

   As required by the BGP specification [RFC4271], PE routers form a
   full peering mesh unless Route Reflectors are used.

3.  Transport over IPv4-signaled LSPs and IPv6 Label Binding

   In this approach, the IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses allow a 6PE router
   that has to forward an IPv6 packet to automatically determine the
   IPv4-signaled LSP to use for a particular IPv6 destination by looking
   at the MP-BGP routing information.

   The IPv4-signaled LSPs can be established using any existing
   technique for label setup [RFC3031] (LDP, RSVP-TE, etc.).

   To ensure interoperability among systems that implement the 6PE
   approach described in this document, all such systems MUST support
   tunneling using IPv4-signaled MPLS LSPs established by LDP [RFC3036].

   When tunneling IPv6 packets over the IPv4 MPLS backbone, rather than
   successively prepend an IPv4 header and then perform label imposition



De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


   based on the IPv4 header, the ingress 6PE Router MUST directly
   perform label imposition of the IPv6 header without prepending any
   IPv4 header.  The (outer) label imposed MUST correspond to the IPv4-
   signaled LSP starting on the ingress 6PE Router and ending on the
   egress 6PE Router.

   While this approach could theoretically operate in some situations
   using a single level of labels, there are significant advantages in
   using a second level of labels that are bound to IPv6 prefixes via
   MP-BGP advertisements in accordance with [RFC3107].

   For instance, the use of a second level label allows Penultimate Hop
   Popping (PHP) on the IPv4 Label Switch Router (LSR) upstream of the
   egress 6PE router, without any IPv6 capabilities/upgrades on the
   penultimate router; this is because it still transmits MPLS packets
   even after the PHP (instead of having to transmit IPv6 packets and
   encapsulate them appropriately).

   Also, an existing IPv4-signaled LSP that is using "IPv4 Explicit NULL
   label" over the last hop (e.g., because that LSP is already being
   used to transport IPv4 traffic with the Pipe Diff-Serv Tunneling
   Model as defined in [RFC3270]) could not be used to carry IPv6 with a
   single label since the "IPv4 Explicit NULL label" cannot be used to
   carry native IPv6 traffic (see [RFC3032]), while it could be used to
   carry labeled IPv6 traffic (see [RFC4182]).

   This is why a second label MUST be used with the 6PE approach.

   The label bound by MP-BGP to the IPv6 prefix indicates to the egress
   6PE Router that the packet is an IPv6 packet.  This label advertised
   by the egress 6PE Router with MP-BGP MAY be an arbitrary label value,
   which identifies an IPv6 routing context or outgoing interface to
   send the packet to, or MAY be the IPv6 Explicit Null Label.  An
   ingress 6PE Router MUST be able to accept any such advertised label.

   [RFC2460] requires that every link in the IPv6 Internet have an MTU
   of 1280 octets or larger.  Therefore, on MPLS links that are used for
   transport of IPv6, as per the 6PE approach, and that do not support
   link-specific fragmentation and reassembly, the MTU must be
   configured to at least 1280 octets plus the encapsulation overhead.

   Some IPv6 hosts might be sending packets larger than the MTU
   available in the IPv4 MPLS core and rely on Path MTU discovery to
   learn about those links.  To simplify MTU discovery operations, one
   option is for the network administrator to engineer the MTU on the
   core facing interfaces of the ingress 6PE consistent with the core
   MTU.  ICMP 'Packet Too Big' messages can then be sent back by the
   ingress 6PE without the corresponding packets ever entering the MPLS



De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


   core.  Otherwise, routers in the IPv4 MPLS network have the option to
   generate an ICMP "Packet Too Big" message using mechanisms as
   described in Section 2.3.2, "Tunneling Private Addresses through a
   Public Backbone" of [RFC3032].

   Note that in the above case, should a core router with an outgoing
   link with an MTU smaller than 1280 receive an encapsulated IPv6
   packet larger than 1280, then the mechanisms of [RFC3032] may result
   in the "Packet Too Big" message never reaching the sender.  This is
   because, according to [RFC4443], the core router will build an ICMP
   "Packet Too Big" message filled with the invoking packet up to 1280
   bytes, and when forwarding downstream towards the egress PE as per
   [RFC3032], the MTU of the outgoing link will cause the packet to be
   dropped.  This may cause significant operational problems; the
   originator of the packets will notice that his data is not getting
   through, without knowing why and where they are discarded.  This
   issue would only occur if the above recommendation (to configure MTU
   on MPLS links of at least 1280 octets plus encapsulation overhead) is
   not adhered to (perhaps by misconfiguration).

4.  Crossing Multiple IPv4 Autonomous Systems

   This section discusses the case where two IPv6 islands are connected
   to different Autonomous Systems (ASes).

   Like in the case of multi-AS backbone operations for IPv4 VPNs
   described in Section 10 of [RFC4364], three main approaches can be
   distinguished:

   a. eBGP redistribution of IPv6 routes from AS to neighboring AS

      This approach is the equivalent for exchange of IPv6 routes to
      procedure (a) described in Section 10 of [RFC4364] for the
      exchange of VPN-IPv4 routes.

      In this approach, the 6PE routers use IBGP (according to [RFC2545]
      and [RFC3107] and as described in this document for the single-AS
      situation) to redistribute labeled IPv6 routes either to an
      Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) 6PE router, or to a route
      reflector of which an ASBR 6PE router is a client.  The ASBR then
      uses eBGP to redistribute the (non-labeled) IPv6 routes to an ASBR
      in another AS, which in turn distributes them to the 6PE routers
      in that AS as described earlier in this specification, or perhaps
      to another ASBR, which in turn distributes them etc.







De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


      There may be one, or multiple, ASBR interconnection(s) across any
      two ASes.  IPv6 needs to be activated on the inter-ASBR links and
      each ASBR 6PE router has at least one IPv6 address on the
      interface to that link.

      No inter-AS LSPs are used.  There is effectively a separate mesh
      of LSPs across the 6PE routers within each AS.

      In this approach, the ASBR exchanging IPv6 routes may peer over
      IPv6 or IPv4.  The exchange of IPv6 routes MUST be carried out as
      per [RFC2545].

      Note that the peering ASBR in the neighboring AS to which the IPv6
      routes were distributed with eBGP, should in its turn redistribute
      these routes to the 6PEs in its AS using IBGP and encoding its own
      IPv4 address as the IPv4-mapped IPv6 BGP Next Hop.

   b. eBGP redistribution of labeled IPv6 routes from AS to neighboring
      AS

      This approach is the equivalent for exchange of IPv6 routes to
      procedure (b) described in Section 10 of [RFC4364] for the
      exchange of VPN-IPv4 routes.

      In this approach, the 6PE routers use IBGP (as described earlier
      in this document for the single-AS situation) to redistribute
      labeled IPv6 routes either to an Autonomous System Border Router
      (ASBR) 6PE router, or to a route reflector of which an ASBR 6PE
      router is a client.  The ASBR then uses eBGP to redistribute the
      labeled IPv6 routes to an ASBR in another AS, which in turn
      distributes them to the 6PE routers in that AS as described
      earlier in this specification, or perhaps to another ASBR, which
      in turn distributes them, etc.

      There may be one, or multiple, ASBR interconnection(s) across any
      two ASes.  IPv6 may or may not be activated on the inter-ASBR
      links.

      This approach requires that there be label switched paths
      established across ASes.  Hence the corresponding considerations
      described for procedure (b) in Section 10 of [RFC4364] apply
      equally to this approach for IPv6.

      In this approach, the ASBR exchanging IPv6 routes may peer over
      IPv4 or IPv6 (in which case IPv6 obviously needs to be activated
      on the inter-ASBR link).  When peering over IPv6, the exchange of
      labeled IPv6 routes MUST be carried out as per [RFC2545] and
      [RFC3107].  When peering over IPv4, the exchange of labeled IPv6



De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


      routes MUST be carried out as per [RFC2545] and [RFC3107] with
      encoding of the IPv4 address of the ASBR as an IPv4-mapped IPv6
      address in the BGP Next Hop field.

   c. Multi-hop eBGP redistribution of labeled IPv6 routes between
      source and destination ASes, with eBGP redistribution of labeled
      IPv4 routes from AS to neighboring AS.

      This approach is the equivalent for exchange of IPv6 routes to
      procedure (c) described in Section 10 of [RFC4364] for exchange of
      VPN-IPv4 routes.

      In this approach, IPv6 routes are neither maintained nor
      distributed by the ASBR routers.  The ASBR routers need not be
      dual stack, but may be IPv4/MPLS-only routers.  An ASBR needs to
      maintain labeled IPv4 /32 routes to the 6PE routers within its AS.
      It uses eBGP to distribute these routes to other ASes.  ASBRs in
      any transit ASes will also have to use eBGP to pass along the
      labeled IPv4 /32 routes.  This results in the creation of an IPv4
      label switched path from the ingress 6PE router to the egress 6PE
      router.  Now 6PE routers in different ASes can establish multi-hop
      eBGP connections to each other over IPv4, and can exchange labeled
      IPv6 routes (with an IPv4-mapped IPv6 BGP Next Hop) over those
      connections.

      IPv6 need not be activated on the inter-ASBR links.

      The considerations described for procedure (c) in Section 10 of
      [RFC4364] with respect to possible use of multi-hop eBGP
      connections via route-reflectors in different ASes, as well as
      with respect to the use of a third label in case the IPv4 /32
      routes for the PE routers are NOT made known to the P routers,
      apply equally to this approach for IPv6.

      This approach requires that there be IPv4 label switched paths
      established across the ASes leading from a packet's ingress 6PE
      router to its egress 6PE router.  Hence the considerations
      described for procedure (c) in Section 10 of [RFC4364], with
      respect to LSPs spanning multiple ASes, apply equally to this
      approach for IPv6.

      Note also that the exchange of IPv6 routes can only start after
      BGP has created IPv4 connectivity between the ASes.








De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


5.  Security Considerations

   The extensions defined in this document allow BGP to propagate
   reachability information about IPv6 routes over an MPLS IPv4 core
   network.  As such, no new security issues are raised beyond those
   that already exist in BGP-4 and use of MP-BGP for IPv6.

   The security features of BGP and corresponding security policy
   defined in the ISP domain are applicable.

   For the inter-AS distribution of IPv6 routes according to case (a) of
   Section 4 of this document, no new security issues are raised beyond
   those that already exist in the use of eBGP for IPv6 [RFC2545].

   For the inter-AS distribution of IPv6 routes according to case (b)
   and (c) of Section 4 of this document, the procedures require that
   there be label switched paths established across the AS boundaries.
   Hence the appropriate trust relationships must exist between and
   among the set of ASes along the path.  Care must be taken to avoid
   "label spoofing".  To this end an ASBR 6PE SHOULD only accept labeled
   packets from its peer ASBR 6PE if the topmost label is a label that
   it has explicitly signaled to that peer ASBR 6PE.

   Note that for the inter-AS distribution of IPv6 routes, according to
   case (c) of Section 4 of this document, label spoofing may be more
   difficult to prevent.  Indeed, the MPLS label distributed with the
   IPv6 routes via multi-hop eBGP is directly sent from the egress 6PE
   to ingress 6PEs in another AS (or through route reflectors).  This
   label is advertised transparently through the AS boundaries.  When
   the egress 6PE that sent the labeled IPv6 routes receives a data
   packet that has this particular label on top of its stack, it may not
   be able to verify whether the label was pushed on the stack by an
   ingress 6PE that is allowed to do so.  As such, one AS may be
   vulnerable to label spoofing in a different AS.  The same issue
   equally applies to the option (c) of Section 10 of [RFC4364].  Just
   as it is the case for [RFC4364], addressing this particular security
   issue is for further study.

6.  Acknowledgements

   We wish to thank Gerard Gastaud and Eric Levy-Abegnoli who
   contributed to this document.  We also wish to thank Tri T. Nguyen,
   who initiated this document, but unfortunately passed away much too
   soon.  We also thank Pekka Savola for his valuable comments and
   suggestions.






De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC2545]  Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol
              Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545, March
              1999.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [RFC3036]  Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and
              B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.

   [RFC3107]  Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
              BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC4760]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January
              2007.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3270]  Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
              P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
              Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.

   [RFC4029]  Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P.
              Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into
              ISP Networks", RFC 4029, March 2005.

   [RFC4182]  Rosen, E., "Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS
              Explicit NULL", RFC 4182, September 2005.




De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
              Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
              Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

   [RFC4659]  De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
              "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
              IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, September 2006.






































De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


Authors' Addresses

   Jeremy De Clercq
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Copernicuslaan 50
   Antwerpen  2018
   Belgium

   EMail: jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel-lucent.be


   Dirk Ooms
   OneSparrow
   Belegstraat 13
   Antwerpen  2018
   Belgium

   EMail: dirk@onesparrow.com


   Stuart Prevost
   BT
   Room 136 Polaris House, Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath
   Ipswich Suffolk IP5 3RE
   England
   EMail: stuart.prevost@bt.com


   Francois Le Faucheur
   Cisco
   Domaine Green Side, 400 Avenue de Roumanille
   Biot, Sophia Antipolis  06410
   France

   EMail: flefauch@cisco.com
















De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 13]
^L
RFC 4798                          6PE                      February 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.







De Clercq, et al.           Standards Track                    [Page 14]
^L