<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2545 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2545.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4291 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4291.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4364 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4364.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4659 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4659.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4684 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4684.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4760 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4760.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4798 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4798.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4925 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4925.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8126 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5492 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5492.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5549 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5549.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5565 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5565.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6074 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6074.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6513 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6513.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6514 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6514.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8174 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8277 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8277.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8950 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8950.xml">
<!ENTITY DYN-CAP SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-dynamic-cap.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- OPTIONS, known as processing instructions (PIs) go here. -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of PIs,
     please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable PIs that most I-Ds might want to use. -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC): -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references: -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space: 
     (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of popular PIs -->
<rfc category="bcp" docName="draft-ietf-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-00" ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IPv4 NLRI IPv6NH">Deployment Guidelines for Edge Peering IPv4-NLRI with IPv6-NH</title>

    <author fullname="Gyan Mishra" initials="G. " surname="Mishra">
      <organization>Verizon Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

   <author fullname="Mankamana Mishra" initials="M. " surname="Mishra">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>821 Alder Drive,</street>
          <city>MILPITAS</city>
          <code>CALIFORNIA 95035</code>
          <country> </country>
        </postal>
        <email>mankamis@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

   <author fullname="Jeff Tantsura" initials="J. " surname="Tantsura">
      <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>jefftant.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
 
     <author fullname="Lili Wang" initials="L." surname="Wang">
      <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>10 Technology Park Drive,</street>
          <city>Westford</city>
          <code>MA 01886</code>
          <country>US</country>
        </postal>
        <email>liliw@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
   </author>
 
   <author fullname="Qing Yang" initials="Q. " surname="Yang">
      <organization>Arista Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <email>qyang@arista.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    
   <author fullname="Adam Simpson" initials="A. " surname="Simpson">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>
      <address>
        <email>adam.1.simpson@nokia.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>    


   <author fullname="Shuanglong Chen" initials="S. " surname="Chen">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <email>chenshuanglong@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
  
    <date year="2021"/>
    <area/>
    <workgroup>BESS Working Group</workgroup>
    <!-- <keyword/> -->
    <abstract>
	   <t>
	   As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or green 
	   field MPLS/SR core to an IPv6 transport, Multiprotocol BGP (MP-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 to IPv6. 
	   Operators must be able to continue to support IPv4 customers  when both the Core and Edge networks are IPv6-Only.  
	  </t>		   
       <t>     
       This document details an important External BGP (eBGP) PE-CE Edge IPv6-Only peering design that leverages the MP-BGP capability exchange by using IPv6 peering as pure transport, allowing 
       both IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) and IPv6 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI)to be carried over the same (Border Gateway Protocol) BGP TCP session.  
       The design change provides the same Dual Stacking functionality that exists today with separate IPv4 and IPv6 BGP sessions as we have today. 
       With this design change from a control plane perspective a single IPv6 is required for both IPv4 and IPv6 routing updates and from a data plane forwarindg perspective an IPv6 address
       need only be configured on the PE and CE interface for both IPv4 and IPv6 packet forwarding.  
       </t>
   	  
       <t>  	      
       This document provides a much needed solution for Internet Exchange Point (IXP) that are facing IPv4 address depletion at large peering points. With this design, IXP can now  
       deploy PE-CE IPv6-Only eBGP Edge peering design to eliminate IPv4 provisioning at the Edge.  This core and edge IPv6-Only peering design paradigm change can apply to any eBGP peering, public 
       internet or private, which can be either Core networks, Data Center networks, Access networks or can be any eBGP peering scenario.  This document provides interoperability test cases 
       for the IPv6-Only peering design as well as test results between five major vendors stakeholders in the routing and switching indusrty, Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei.  
       With the test results provided for the IPv6-Only Edge peering design, the goal is that all other vendors around the world that have not been tested will begin to adopt and implement 
       this new Best Current Practice for eBGP IPv6-Only Edge peering.  
       </t>

       <t>               
       As this issue with IXP IPv4 address depletion is a critical issue around the world, it is imperative for an immediate solution that can be implemented quickly.  This Best Current Practice 
       IPv6-only eBGP peering design specification will help proliferate IPv6-Only deployments at the eBGP Edge network peering points to starting immediately at a minimum with operators around 
       the world using Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei.  As other vendors start to implement this Best Current Practice, the IXP IPv4 address depletion gap will eventually be eliminated.      
      </t>
      
    </abstract>

  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
	<t>	
	As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or 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 role in the transition 
	of the Provider (P) core networks and Provider Edge (PE) edge networks from IPv4 to IPv6.  Operators have a requirement to support IPv4 customers and must be able to support 
	IPv4 address family and Sub-Address-Family Virtual Private Network (VPN)-IPv4, and Multicast VPN IPv4 customers.  
	</t>
	
   <t>				 
	IXP are also facing IPv4 address depletion at their peering points, 
	which are large Layer 2 transit backbones that service providers peer and exchange IPv4 
	and IPv6 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI).  Today, these transit exchange points 
	are Dual Stacked.  With this IPv6-only BGP peering design, only IPv6 is configured on the PE-CE interface, the Provider Edge (PE) - Customer Edge (CE), the IPv6 BGP peer is now used to carry 
	IPv4 (Network Layer Reachability Information) NLRI over an IPv6 next hop using IPv6 next hop encoding defined in <xref target="RFC8950"/>, while continuing to forward both IPv4 and IPv6 packets.
	In the framework of this design the PE is no 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.    
	</t>  
       <t>	   
	   MP-BGP specifies that the set of usable next-hop address families is determined by the Address Family 
	   Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI).  
	   Historically the AFI/SAFI definitions for the IPv4 address family only 
	   have provisions for advertising a Next Hop address that belongs to 
	   the IPv4 protocol when advertising IPv4 or VPN-IPv4.  <xref target="RFC8950"/> specifies the extensions 
	   necessary to allow advertising IPv4 NLRI, Virtual Private Network Unicast (VPN-IPv4) NLRI, Multicast Virtual Private Network (MVPN-IPv4) NLRI with a Next Hop
       address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol.  This comprises of an
       extended next hop encoding MP-REACH BGP capability exchange to allow the address of the
       Next Hop for IPv4 NLRI, VPN-IPv4 NLRI and MVPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6
       Protocol.  <xref target="RFC8950"/> defines the encoding of the Next Hop to determine 
       which of the protocols the address actually belongs to, and a new BGP 
       Capability allowing MP-BGP Peers to discover dynamically whether they can
       exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN-IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop.  
  	   </t>       	      
   
	<t>
   The current specification for carrying IPv4 NLRI of a given address family via a Next Hop of a different address family is now 
   defined in <xref target="RFC8950"/>, and specifies the extended next hop encoding MP-REACH capability extension necessary to do so.  
   This comprises an extension 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 protocol, the encoding of the Next Hop
   information to determine which of the protocols the address
   belongs to, and a new BGP Capability allowing MP-BGP peers to
   dynamically discover whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN-
   IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop.  
  	</t>
   
   <t>
   With the new extensions defined in <xref target="RFC8950"/> supporting NLRI and 
   next 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 Provider Edge (PE) - Customer Edge (CE) over a single IPv6 TCP session.  
   This allows for the elimination of dual stack from the PE-CE peering point, 
   and now enable the peering to be IPv6-ONLY. The elimination of IPv4 on the PE-CE 
   peering points translates into OPEX expenditure savings of point-to-point 
   infrastructure links as well as /31 address space savings and administration 
   and network management of both IPv4 and IPv6 BGP peers.  This reduction decreases 
   the number of PE-CE BGP peers by fifty percent, which is a tremendous cost 
   savings for operators.     
   </t>

   <t>
   While the savings exists at the Edge eBGP PE-CE peering, on the core side PE to Route Reflector (RR) peering carrying 
   &lt;AFI/SAFI&gt; IPv4 &lt;1/1&gt;, VPN-IPV4 &lt;1/128&gt;, and Multicasat VPN &lt;1/129&gt;, 
   there is no savings as the Provider (P) Core is IPv6 Only and thus can only have an IPv6 peer and must use  <xref target="RFC8950"/> extended next hop encoding to
   carrying IPv4 NLRI IPV4 &lt;2/1&gt;, VPN-IPV4 &lt;2/128&gt;, and Multicasat 
   VPN &lt;2/129&gt; over an IPv6 next hop.  
   </t>

       <t>  	      
       This document provides a much needed solution for Internet Exchange Point (IXP) that are facing IPv4 address depletion at large peering points. With this design, IXP can now use 
       deploy PE-CE IPv6-Only eBGP Edge peering design to eliminate IPv4 provisioning at the Edge.  This core and edge IPv6-Only peering design paradigm change can apply to any eBGP peering, public 
       internet or private, which can be either Core networks, Data Center networks, Access networks or can be any eBGP peering scenario.  This document provides interoperability test cases 
       for the IPv6-Only peering design as well as successful test results between five major vendors stakeholders in the routing and switching indusrty, Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei.  
       With the test results provided for the IPv6-Only Edge peering design, the goal is that all other vendors around the world that have not been tested will begin to adopt and implement 
       this new best practice for eBGP IPv6-Only Edge peering.  
       </t>

       <t>               
       As this issue with IXP address depletion is a critical issue around the world, it is imperative for an immediate solution that can be implemented quickly.  This best practice IPv6-only eBGP peering 
       design specification will help proliferate IPv6-Only deployments at the eBGP Edge network peering points starting immediately at a minimum with operators around the world using 
       Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei.      
      </t>

	</section>
	<section anchor="requirements" title="Requirements Language">
	  
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.</t>
 
 	</section>
 	
    <section anchor="termo" title="Terminology">
	<t>	
	Terminolgoy used in defining the IPv6-Only Edge specification.  
	</t>
	
	  <t>AFBR: Address Family Border Router Provider Edge (PE).</t>
	  
	  <t>Edge: PE-CE Edge Network Provider Edge - Customer Edge</t>
	  
	  <t>Core: P Core Network Provider (P)</t>
	  
      <t>4to6 Softwire : IPv4 edge over an IPv6-Only core</t>

      <t>6to4 Softwire: IPv6 edge over an IPv4-Only core</t>

      <t>E2E: End to End</t>
      

 	</section>
 			   
		  <section anchor="IPv6onlyall" title="IPv6-Only Edge Peering Architecture">
			  
		     <section anchor="problem" title="Problem Statement">	 
	
	<t>			 
	This specification addresses a real issue that has been discussed at many operator groups around the world related 
	to IXP major peering points where hundreds of AS's have both IPv4 and IPv6 dual stacked peering. IPv4 address depletion have been a major issue issue for many years now.  
    Operators around the world are clamoring for a solution that can help solve issues related to IPv4 address depletion at 
    these large IXP peering points.  With this solution IXPs as well as all infrastructure networks such as Core networks, DC networks, Access networks as well as any  
    PE-CE public or private network can now utilize this IPv6-Only Edge solution and reap the benefits immediately on IPv4 address space saving.  
	</t>	 
			 
 
 		     <figure anchor="ixp" title="Problem Statement - IXP Dual Stack Peering">
       <artwork align="center">
		   
		        IXP Problem Statement
		   
		 Dual Stacked            Dual Stacked
		      CE                      PE
 
                   +-------+ IPv4 BGP Peer +-------+
                   |       |---------------|       |
                   |   CE  | IPv6 BGP Peer |  PE   |
                   |       |---------------|       | 
                   +-------+               +-------+
                  IPv4 forwarding            IPv4 forwarding 
                  IPv6 forwarding            IPv6 forwarding
 
          </artwork>
     </figure>       
     
        		     <figure anchor="ixp-vpn-problem" title="Problem Statement - E2E Dual Stack Edge">
       <artwork align="center">
		   
                               ________		   
    Dual Stacked     _____    /        \                Dual Stacked
      PE / CE       /     \__/          \___              PE / CE        
  +----+  +----+   /                        \        +------+   +-----+
  |    |  |    |  |0====VPN Overlay Tunnel ==0|      |      |   |     |
  |    |  |    |  |                             \    |      |   |     |
  | CE |--| PE |--\         IPv6-Only Core      |----|  PE  |---|  CE |
  |    |  |    |    \0=========Underlay =======0|    |      |   |     |
  +----+  +----+     \                        __/    +------+   +-----+
  IPv4 IPv6 BGP peer  \ IP / MPLS / SR domain /     IPv4 and IPv6 BGP peer
  IPv4 forwarding      \__         __       /          IPv4 forwarding
  IPv6 forwarding         \_______/  \_____/           IPv6 forwarding 
 
 

          </artwork>
     </figure>  
 

 	     	</section>
 	
	   	
	     <section anchor="solution" title="IPv6-Only PE-CE Design Solution">	
			 
    <t>			 
	The IPv6-Only Edge design solution provides a means of E2E single protocol design solution extension of <xref target="RFC5565"/> Softwire Mesh framework from the PE-CE Edge to the Core from ingres so egress through the entire operators domain.
	This solution eliminates all IPv4 addressing from end to end while still providing the same Dual Stack functionality of IPv4 and IPv6 packet forwarding from a data plane perspective by
	leveraging the <xref target="RFC8950"/> extended next hop encoding so that IPv4 NLRI can be advertised over a single IPv6 pure transport TCP session.  This IPv6-Only E2E architecture eliminates all
	IPv4 peering and IPv4 addressing E2E from the ingress CE to ingress PE to egress PE to egress CE and all hops along the operator E2E path.    
	</t>				    	
 
  		     <figure anchor="all-s" title="IPv6-Only Solution Applicability">
       <artwork align="center">
		   
		             Solution applicable to 
		  any Edge peering scenario - IXP, Core, DC, Access, etc
 
                   +-------+                +-------+
                   |       |  IPv6 Only     |       |
                   |   CE  |----------------|  PE   |
                   |       |  IPv6 BGP Peer |       | 
                   +-------+                +-------+
                  IPv4 forwarding            IPv4 forwarding 
                  IPv6 forwarding            IPv6 forwarding
 
          </artwork>
     </figure>       
 
 
 
  		     <figure anchor="ixp-vpn-sol" title="E2E VPN Solution">
       <artwork align="center">
		   
                               ________		   
     IPv6-Only       _____    /        \                 IPv6-Only
      PE / CE       /     \__/          \___              PE / CE        
  +----+  +----+   /                        \        +------+   +-----+
  |    |  |    |  |0====VPN Overlay Tunnel ==0|      |      |   |     |
  |    |  |    |  |                             \    |      |   |     |
  | CE |--| PE |--\         IPv6-Only Core      |----|  PE  |---|  CE |
  |    |  |    |    \0=========Underlay ===== ==0    |      |   |     |
  +----+  +----+     \                        __/    +------+   +-----+
  IPv6 BGP peer        \IP / MPLS / SR domain /        IPv6 BGP peer
  IPv4 forwarding      \__         __       /          IPv4 forwarding
  IPv6 forwarding         \_______/  \_____/           IPv6 forwarding 
 
 

          </artwork>
     </figure>  
         	         
     	</section>			  

		  <section anchor="rfc5565intro" title="IPv6-Only Edge Peering Design">

            <section anchor="rfc5565walk" title="IPv6-Only Edge Peering Packet Walk">
		   			  
	<t>	
   The IPv6-Only Edge Peering design utilizes two key E2E Softwire Mesh Framework scenario's, 4to6 softwire and 6to4 softwire.	
   The Softwire mesh framework concept is based on the overlay and underlay MPLS or SR based technology framework, where the underlay is the transport layer and the overlay is a 
   Virtual Private Network (VPN) layer, and is the the tunneled virtualization layer containing the customer payload.  The concept of a 6to4 Softwire is based on transmission 
   of IPv6 packets at the edge of the network by tunneling the IPv6 packets over an IPv4-Only Core.  The concept of a 4to6 Softwire is also based on transmission 
   of IPv4 packets at the edge of the network by tunneling the IPv4 packets over an IPv6-Only Core. 
 	</t>  

   <t>   
   This document describes End to End (E2E) test scenarios that follow a packet flow from IPv6-Only attachment circuit from ingress PE-CE to egress PE-CE tracing the routing protocol control plane and data plane forwarding 
   of IPv4 packets in a 4to6 softwire or 6to4 softwire within the IPv4-Only or IPv6-Only Core network.  
   In both secneario we are focusing on IPv4 packets and the control plane and data plane forwarding aspects of IPv4 packets from the PE-CE Edge network over an IPv6-Only P (Provider) 
   core network or IPv4-Only P (Provider) core network.  With this IPv6-Only Edge peering design, the Softwire Mesh Framework is not extended beyond the Provider Edge (PE) and continues to terminate on the PE router.  
	</t>

         	</section>

       <section anchor="rfc5565v4" title="6to4 Softwire IPv4-Only Core packet walk">

	<t>6to4 softwire where IPv6-Edge eBGP IPv6 peering where IPv4 packets at network Edge traverse a IPv4-Only Core</t> 
	
	<t>	
   In the scenario where IPv4 packets originating from a PE-CE edge are tunneled over an MPLS or Segment Routing IPv4 underlay core network, the PE and CE only have an IPv6 address configured on the interface.
   In this scenario the IPv4 packets that ingress the CE from within the CE AS are over an IPv6-Only interface and are forwarded to an IPv4 NLRI destination prefix learned from the Pure Transport Single IPv6 BGP Peer. 
   In the IPv6-Only Edge peering architecture the PE is IPv6-Only as all PE-CE interfaces are IPv6-Only.  However, on the CE, the PE-CE interface is the only interface that is IPv6-Only and all other interfaces 
   may or may not be IPv6-Only.  Following the data plane packet flow, IPv4 packets are forwarded from the ingress CE to the IPv6-Only ingress PE where the VPN label imposition push per prefix, per-vrf, per-CE 
   occurs and the labeled packet is forwarded over a 6to4 softwire IPv4-Only core, to the egress PE where the VPN label disposition pop occurs and the native IPv4 packet is forwarded to the egress CE.  
   In the reverse direction IPv4 packets are forwarded from the egress CE to egress PE where the VPN label imposition per prefix, per-vrf, per-CE push occurs and the labeled packet is forwarded back over 
   the 6to4 softwire IPv4-Only core, to the ingress PE where the VPN label disposition pop occurs and the native IPv4 packet is forwarded to the ingress CE. . The functionality of the IPv4 forwarding plane 
   in this scenario is identical from a data plane forwarding perspective to Dual Stack IPv4 forwarding scenario.
	</t>
		   
		     <figure anchor="soft4" title="6to4 Softwire - IPv6 Edge over an IPv4-Only Core">
       <artwork align="center">

                          +--------+   +--------+
                          |  IPv4  |   |  IPv4  |
                          | Client |   | Client |
                          | Network|   | Network|
                          +--------+   +--------+
                              |   \     /   |
                              |    \   /    |
                              |     \ /     |
                              |      X      |
                              |     / \     |
                              |    /   \    |
                              |   /     \   |
                          +--------+   +--------+
                          |  AFBR  |   |  AFBR  |
                       +--| IPv4/6 |---| IPv4/6 |--+
                       |  +--------+   +--------+  |
       +--------+      |                           |       +--------+
       |  IPv4  |      |                           |       |  IPv4  |
       | Client |      |                           |       | Client |
       | Network|------|            IPv4           |-------| Network|
       +--------+      |            only           |       +--------+
                       |                           |
                       |  +--------+   +--------+  |
                       +--|  AFBR  |---|  AFBR  |--+
                          | IPv4/6 |   | IPv4/6 |
                          +--------+   +--------+
                            |   \     /   |
                            |    \   /    |
                            |     \ /     |
                            |      X      |
                            |     / \     |
                            |    /   \    |
                            |   /     \   |
                         +--------+   +--------+
                         |  IPv6  |   |  IPv4  |
                         | Client |   | Client |
                         | Network|   | Network|
                         +--------+   +--------+

  
         </artwork>
     </figure>                   
    
         	</section>
 

   	        	
 
        <section anchor="rfc5565v6" title="4to6 Softwire IPv6-Only Core packet walk">
						
	<t>4to6 softwire where IPv6-Edge eBGP IPv6 peering where IPv4 packets at network Edge traverse a IPv6-Only Core</t> 

	<t>	
   In the scenario where IPv4 packets originating from a PE-CE edge are tunneled over an MPLS or Segment Routing IPv4 underlay core network, the PE and CE only have an IPv6 address configured on the interface.
   In this scenario the IPv4 packets that ingress the CE from within the CE AS are over an IPv6-Only interface and are forwarded to an IPv4 NLRI destination prefix learned from the Pure Transport Single IPv6 BGP Peer. 
   In the IPv6-Only Edge peering architecture the PE is IPv6-Only as all PE-CE interfaces are IPv6-Only.  However, on the CE, the PE-CE interface is the only interface that is IPv6-Only and all other interfaces 
   may or may not be IPv6-Only.  Following the data plane packet flow, IPv4 packets are forwarded from the ingress CE to the IPv6-Only ingress PE where the VPN label imposition push per prefix, per-vrf, per-CE 
   occurs and the labeled packet is forwarded over a 4to6 softwire IPv6-Only core, to the egress PE where the VPN label disposition pop occurs and the native IPv4 packet is forwarded to the egress CE.  
   In the reverse direction IPv4 packets are forwarded from the egress CE to egress PE where the VPN label imposition per prefix, per-vrf, per-CE push occurs and the labeled packet is forwarded back over 
   the 4to6 softwire IPv6-Only core, to the ingress PE where the VPN label disposition pop occurs and the native IPv4 packet is forwarded to the ingress CE. . The functionality of the IPv4 forwarding plane 
   in this scenario is identical from a data plane forwarding perspective to Dual Stack IPv4 forwarding scenario.
	</t>

				        	                 
		     <figure anchor="soft6" title="4to6 Softwire - IPv4 Edge over an IPv6-Only Core">
       <artwork align="center">
                     
                          +--------+   +--------+
                          |  IPv4  |   |  IPv4  |
                          | Client |   | Client |
                          | Network|   | Network|
                          +--------+   +--------+
                              |   \     /   |
                              |    \   /    |
                              |     \ /     |
                              |      X      |
                              |     / \     |
                              |    /   \    |
                              |   /     \   |
                          +--------+   +--------+
                          |  AFBR  |   |  AFBR  |
                       +--| IPv4/6 |---| IPv4/6 |--+
                       |  +--------+   +--------+  |
       +--------+      |                           |       +--------+
       |  IPv6  |      |                           |       |  IPv6  |
       | Client |      |                           |       | Client |
       | Network|------|            IPv6           |-------| Network|
       +--------+      |            only           |       +--------+
                       |                           |
                       |  +--------+   +--------+  |
                       +--|  AFBR  |---|  AFBR  |--+
                          | IPv4/6 |   | IPv4/6 |
                          +--------+   +--------+
                            |   \     /   |
                            |    \   /    |
                            |     \ /     |
                            |      X      |
                            |     / \     |
                            |    /   \    |
                            |   /     \   |
                         +--------+   +--------+
                         |  IPv4  |   |  IPv4  |
                         | Client |   | Client |
                         | Network|   | Network|
                         +--------+   +--------+

               

        </artwork>
     </figure>           


  	</section>	 	
  </section>

 	<section anchor="diff" title="RFC5549 and RFC8950 Applicability">

		<section anchor="applicability" title="IPv6-Only Edge Peering design next-hop encoding">
	
	<t>
	This section describes <xref target="RFC8950"/> next hop encoding updates to <xref target="RFC5549"/> applicability to this specification. 
    IPv6-only eBGP Edge PE-CE peering to carry IPv4 Unicast NLRI &lt;AFI/SAFI&gt; IPv4 &lt;1/1&gt; over an IPv6 next hop BGP capability extended hop encoding IANA capability codepoint value 5 defined
    is applicable to both <xref target="RFC5549"/> and <xref target="RFC8950"/> as IPv4 Unicast NLRI &lt;AFI/SAFI&gt; IPv4 &lt;1/1&gt; does not change in the RFC updates.
	</t>  
 
 	<t>
    IPv4 packets over an IPv6-Only core 4to6 Softwire E2E packet flow is part of the IPv6-Only design vendor interoperaiblity test cases and in that respect is applicable as 
    <xref target="RFC8950"/> updates <xref target="RFC5549"/> for &lt;AFI/SAFI&gt; VPN-IPV4 &lt;1/128&gt;, and Multicasat VPN &lt;1/129&gt;	
	</t> 
		   </section>
	
			<section anchor="update" title="RFC8950 updates to RFC5549 applicability">

	<t>
	This section describes the <xref target="RFC8950"/> next hop encoding updates to  <xref target="RFC5549"/> 
 	</t> 	
	
    <t>
	In <xref target="RFC5549"/> when AFI/SAFI 1/128 is used, the next-hop address
    is encoded as an IPv6 address with a length of 16 or 32 bytes.
    This document modifies how the next-hop address is encoded to accommodate all existing implementations and bring consistency
    with VPNv4oIPv4 and VPNv6oIPv6.  The next-hop address is now encoded
    as a VPN-IPv6 address with a length of 24 or 48 bytes <xref target="RFC8950"/> (see
    Sections 3 and 6.2 of this document).  This change addresses Erratum ID 5253
    (Err5253).  As all known and deployed implementations are
    interoperable today and use the new proposed encoding, the change
    does not break existing interoperability.  Updates to <xref target="RFC8950"/> is applicable to the IPv6-Only PE-CE edge design for the 
    IPv6 next hop encoding E2E test case of IPv4 packets over and IPv6-Only core 4to6 Softwire.  In this test case IPv4 Unicast NLRI &lt;AFI/SAFI&gt; IPv4 &lt;1/1&gt; is 
    advertised over the PE to RR core peering 4to6 softwire in &lt;AFI/SAFI&gt; VPN-IPV4 &lt;1/128&gt;.  In this test case label allocation mode comes into play which is discussed in section 8.9. 
 	</t>   
      
   
   
	<t>
	<xref target="RFC5549"/> next hop encoding of MP_REACH_NLRI with:
   <list style="symbols">

   <t>NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition</t>
	</list>
	</t>
	<t>
	 Advertising with [RFC4760] MP_REACH_NLRI with:
	<list style="symbols">

   <t>AFI = 1</t>

   <t>SAFI = 128 or 129</t>

   <t>Length of Next Hop Address = 16 or 32</t>


   <t>NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition</t>
	</list>	
	</t>
	
	<t>
	<xref target="RFC8950"/> next hop encoding of MP_REACH_NLRI with:
   <list style="symbols">

   <t>NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition</t>
	</list>
	</t>	
	<t>
	 Advertising with [RFC4760] MP_REACH_NLRI with:
	<list style="symbols">

   <t>AFI = 1</t>

   <t>SAFI = 128 or 129</t>

   <t>Length of Next Hop Address = 24 or 48</t>

   <t>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 address of the next hop with an 8-octet RD is set to zero).</t>
	
	   <t>NLRI= NLRI as per current AFI/SAFI definition</t>
	</list>	
	</t>	

	     	</section>
	    </section>
  	</section>	
 		
	<section anchor="ProofOfConcept" title="IPv6-Only Design Edge E2E Test Cases">

	<t>
    Proof of conept interoperability testing of the 4 test cases between the 5 vendors Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei. 
	</t>		
       	         	      	
      	
  	     <section anchor="test1" title="Test-1 IPv6-Only PE-CE Global Table over IPv4-Only Core ">	
			 
				 
 
  		     <figure anchor="test1a" title="Test-1 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE Global Table 6to4 Softwire">
       <artwork align="center">
		   
                               ________		   
     IPv6-Only       _____    /        \                 IPv6-Only
      PE / CE       /     \__/          \___              PE / CE        
  +----+  +----+   /                        \        +------+   +-----+
  |    |  |    |  |                          |_      |      |   |     |
  |    |  |    |  |                             \    |      |   |     |
  | CE |--| PE |--\         IPv4-Only Core      |----|  PE  |---|  CE |
  |    |  |    |    \0=========Underlay =======0|    |      |   |     |
  +----+  +----+     \                        __/    +------+   +-----+
  IPv6 BGP peer       \     MPLS / SR domain /         IPv6 BGP peer
  IPv4 forwarding      \__         __       /          IPv4 forwarding
  IPv6 forwarding         \_______/  \_____/           IPv6 forwarding 
 
 

          </artwork>
     </figure>  
 
 	<t>	
    Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia, Huawei Test case Results documented here.
	</t>		
   
     	</section>      	
 
  	     <section anchor="test2" title="Test-2 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE VPN over IPv4-Only Core">	
 
	
 
 
  		     <figure anchor="test2a" title="Test-2 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE Design VPN 6to4 Softwire">
       <artwork align="center">
		   
                               ________		   
     IPv6-Only       _____    /        \                 IPv6-Only
      PE / CE       /     \__/          \___              PE / CE        
  +----+  +----+   /                        \        +------+   +-----+
  |    |  |    |  | 0====VPN Overlay Tunnel ==0|     |      |   |     |
  |    |  |    |  |                             \    |      |   |     |
  | CE |--| PE |--\         IPv4-Only Core      |----|  PE  |---|  CE |
  |    |  |    |    \0=========Underlay =======0|    |      |   |     |
  +----+  +----+     \                        __/    +------+   +-----+
  IPv6 BGP peer       \   MPLS / SR domain   /         IPv6 BGP peer
  IPv4 forwarding      \__         __       /          IPv4 forwarding
  IPv6 forwarding         \_______/  \_____/           IPv6 forwarding 
 
 

          </artwork>
     </figure>  

 	<t>	
    Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia, Huawei Test case Results documented here.
	</t> 
 	
 	   </section> 

  	     <section anchor="test3" title="Test-3 IPv6-Only PE-CE Global Table over IPv6-Only Core ">	


 
  		     <figure anchor="test3a" title="Test-3 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE Global Table 4to6 Softwire">
       <artwork align="center">
		   
                               ________		   
     IPv6-Only       _____    /        \                 IPv6-Only
      PE / CE       /     \__/          \___              PE / CE        
  +----+  +----+   /                        \        +------+   +-----+
  |    |  |    |  |                          |_      |      |   |     |
  |    |  |    |  |                             \    |      |   |     |
  | CE |--| PE |--\         IPv6-Only Core      |----|  PE  |---|  CE |
  |    |  |    |    \0=========Underlay =======0|    |      |   |     |
  +----+  +----+     \                        __/    +------+   +-----+
  IPv6 BGP peer       \     MPLS / SR domain /         IPv6 BGP peer
  IPv4 forwarding      \__         __       /          IPv4 forwarding
  IPv6 forwarding         \_______/  \_____/           IPv6 forwarding 
 
 

          </artwork>
     </figure>  
 
 	<t>	
    Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia, Huawei Test case Results documented here.
	</t>  
 	        
     	</section>      	
 
  	     <section anchor="test4" title="Test-4 IPv6-Only PE-CE VPN over IPv6-Only Core">	


 
  		     <figure anchor="test4a" title="Test-4 E2E IPv6-Only PE-CE VPN 4to6 Softwire">
       <artwork align="center">
		   
                               ________		   
     IPv6-Only       _____    /        \                 IPv6-Only
      PE / CE       /     \__/          \___              PE / CE        
  +----+  +----+   /                        \        +------+   +-----+
  |    |  |    |  | 0====VPN Overlay Tunnel ==0|     |      |   |     |
  |    |  |    |  |                             \    |      |   |     |
  | CE |--| PE |--\         IPv6-Only Core      |----|  PE  |---|  CE |
  |    |  |    |    \0=========Underlay =======0|    |      |   |     |
  +----+  +----+     \                        __/    +------+   +-----+
  IPv6 BGP peer       \    MPLS / SR domain  /         IPv6 BGP peer
  IPv4 forwarding      \__         __       /          IPv4 forwarding
  IPv6 forwarding         \_______/  \_____/           IPv6 forwarding 
 
 

          </artwork>
     </figure>  

	<t>	
    Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia, Huawei Test case Results documented here.
	</t>  

     	</section>  
     	
  	     <section anchor="pingtrace" title="IPv6-Only PE-CE Operational Considerations Testing">	
 
  		     <figure anchor="pingtrace1" title="Ping and Trace Test Case">
       <artwork align="center">
		   
		       Ping CE to PE when destination prefix is withdrawn
		       Traceroute CE to PE and test all ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 type codes
 
                   +-------+                +-------+
                   |       |  IPv6 Only     |       |
                   |   CE  |----------------|  PE   |
                   |       |  IPv6 BGP Peer |       | 
                   +-------+                +-------+
                  IPv4 forwarding            IPv4 forwarding 
                  IPv6 forwarding            IPv6 forwarding
 
          </artwork>
     </figure>       

	<t>	
    Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia, Huawei Test case Results documented here.
	</t>
  	         
     	</section>    	
  	</section>


 
   	<section anchor="considerations" title="Operational Considerations">
		  
   	<t>
    With a single IPv6 Peer carrying both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI there are some operational considerations in terms of what changes and what does not change.
    </t>
	
	<t>What does not change with a single IPv6 transport peer carrying IPv4 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI below:</t> 

	
	<t>Routing Policy configuration is still separate for IPv4 and IPv6 configured by capability as previously.</t>
	
	<t>Layer 1, Layer 2 issues such as one-way fiber or fiber cut will impact both IPv4 and IPv6 as previously.</t>
	
	<t>If the interface is in the Admin Down state, the IPv6 peer would go down, and IPv4 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI would be withdrawn as previously.</t>

	
    <t>Changes resulting from a single IPv6 transport peer carrying IPv4 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI below:</t> 
	
	
	<t>Physical interface is no longer dual stacked.</t>  
	
	<t>Any change in IPv6 address or DAD state will impact both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI exchange.</t>

	<t>Single BFD session for both IPv4 and IPv6 NLRI fate sharing as the session is now tied to the transport, which now is only IPv6 address family.</t>
	
	<t>Both IPv4 and IPv6 peer now exists under the IPv6 address family configuration.</t>
	
	<t>Fate sharing of IPv4 and IPv6 address family from a logical perspective now carried over a single physical IPv6 peer.</t>
	
	<t>
	From an operations perspective, prior to elimination of IPv4 peers, an audit is recommended to identify and IPv4 and IPv6 peering 
	incongruencies that may exist and to rectify them.  No operational impacts or issues are expected with this change.
	</t>
	
    <t>
	With MPLS VPN overlay, per-CE next-hop label allcoation mode where both IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes have the same label in no table lookup pop-n-forward mode should be taken into consideration.
	</t>
	
    </section>
     
 
	
    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
    <t> There are not any IANA considerations.
    </t>
	
    </section>
    <section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
	<t>
   The extensions defined in this document allow BGP to propagate
   reachability information about IPv4 prefixes over an MPLS or SR IPv6-Only core
   network.  As such, no new security issues are raised beyond those
   that already exist in BGP-4 and the use of MP-BGP for IPv6.  Both IPv4 and IPv6 peers exist under the IPv6 address family configuration.

   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 <xref target="RFC2545"/>.
	   
    </t>

	</section>
	<section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgments">
		<t>Thanks to Kaliraj Vairavakkalai, Linda Dunbar, Aijun Wang, Eduardfor Vasilenko, Joel Harlpern, Michael McBride, Ketan Talaulikar for review comments.</t>        
	</section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      &RFC2119;
	  &RFC2545;
	  &RFC4291;
	  &RFC4364;
	  &RFC4760;
	  &RFC5492;
	  &RFC8174;
	  &RFC8277; 
    </references>
	<references title="Informative References">
	&DYN-CAP;
	&RFC4659;
	&RFC4684;
	&RFC4798;
	&RFC4925;
	&RFC8126;
	&RFC5549;
	&RFC5565;
	&RFC6074;
	&RFC6513;
	&RFC6514;
    &RFC8950;	 
    </references>
    <!-- references title="Informative References">
    </references -->

       
  </back>
</rfc>       
       
