Address Family Identifier - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Address Family Identifier

The Experts below are selected from a list of 39 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Address Family Identifier – Free Register to Access Experts & Abstracts

Eric Rosen – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • BGP Control Plane for the Network Service Header in Service Function Chaining
    , 2020
    Co-Authors: James Uttaro, Luay Jalil, John Drake, Adrian Farrel, Eric Rosen
    Abstract:

    This document describes the use of BGP as a control plane for networks that support Service Function Chaining (SFC). The document introduces a new BGP Address Family called the SFC Address Family Identifier / Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SFC AFI/SAFI) with two route types. One route type is originated by a node to advertise that it hosts a particular instance of a specified service function. This route type also provides “instructions” on how to send a packet to the hosting node in a way that indicates that the service function has to be applied to the packet. The other route type is used by a Controller to advertise the paths of “chains” of service functions, and to give a unique designator to each such path so that they can be used in conjunction with the Network Service Header defined in RFC 8300. This document adopts the SFC architecture described in RFC 7665.

  • Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop
    , 2009
    Co-Authors: Eric Rosen, Francois Le Faucheur
    Abstract:

    MultiProtocol-BGP (MP-BGP) specifies that the set of Network Layer protocols to which the Address carried in the Next Hop field may belong is determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI). The current 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 an IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) or a VPN-IPv4 NLRI. This document specifies the extensions necessary to allow advertising an IPv4 NLRI or a VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a Next Hop Address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. This comprises an extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the Address of the Next Hop for an IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6 protocol, the encoding of the Next Hop in order to determine which of the protocols the Address actually 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.

  • The BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
    , 2009
    Co-Authors: Pradosh Mohapatra, Eric Rosen
    Abstract:

    In certain situations, transporting a packet from one Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) speaker to another, the BGP next hop, requires that the packet be encapsulated by the first BGP speaker and decapsulated by the second. To support these situations, there needs to be some agreement between the two BGP speakers with regard to the “encapsulation information”, i.e., the format of the encapsulation header as well as the contents of various fields of the header. The encapsulation information need not be signaled for all encapsulation types. In the cases where the signaling is required (such as Layer Two Tunneling Protocol – Version 3 (L2TPv3), Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) with key), this draft specifies a method by which BGP speakers can signal encapsulation information to each other. The signaling is done by sending BGP updates using the “Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI)” and IPv4 or IPv6 Address Family Identifier (AFI). In the cases where no encapsulation information needs to be signaled (such as GRE without key), this draft specifies a BGP extended community that can be attached to BGP UPDATE messages that carry payload prefixes to indicate the encapsulation protocol type to be used.

Francois Le Faucheur – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop
    , 2009
    Co-Authors: Eric Rosen, Francois Le Faucheur
    Abstract:

    MultiProtocol-BGP (MP-BGP) specifies that the set of Network Layer protocols to which the Address carried in the Next Hop field may belong is determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI). The current 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 an IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) or a VPN-IPv4 NLRI. This document specifies the extensions necessary to allow advertising an IPv4 NLRI or a VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a Next Hop Address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. This comprises an extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the Address of the Next Hop for an IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6 protocol, the encoding of the Next Hop in order to determine which of the protocols the Address actually 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.

  • Advertising an IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop
    , 2006
    Co-Authors: Eric Rosen, Francois Le Faucheur
    Abstract:

    MultiProtocol-BGP (MP-BGP) specifies that the set of Network Layer protocols to which the Address carried in the Next Hop field may belong is determined by the Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI). The current 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 an IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) or a VPN-IPv4 NLRI. This document specifies the extensions necessary to allow advertising an IPv4 NLRI or a VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a Next Hop Address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. This comprises an extension of the AFI/SAFI definitions to allow the Address of the Next Hop for an IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI to also belong to the IPv6 protocol, the encoding of the Next Hop in order to determine which of the protocols the Address actually 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.

Gyan Mishra – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information with IPv6 Next Hop Use Cases
    , 2020
    Co-Authors: Gyan Mishra
    Abstract:

    As Enterprises and Service Providers upgrade their brown field or green field core to an IPv6 transport such as an MPLS LDPv6 core or SRv6 core, Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP)now plays an important role in the transition of the core from IPv4 to IPv6 being able to continue to support legacy IPv4, VPN-IPv4, and Multicast VPN customers. IXPs (Internet Exchange points) 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. One proposal to solve this issue is to use [RFC5549] to carry IPv4 (Network Layer Reachability Information) NLRI in an IPv6 next hop and eliminate the IPv4 peering completely using the concept of [RFC5565] softwire mesh framework. So now with the MP-BGP reach capability exchanged over IPv4 AFI over IPv6 next hop peer we can now advertise IPv4(Network Layer Reachability Information) NLRI over IPv6 peering using the [RFC5565] softwire mesh framework. Multiprotocol BGP (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 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI). [RFC5549] specifies the extensions necessary to allow advertising IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a Next Hop Address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. 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 also belong to the IPv6 Protocol. [RFC5549] 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 dynamically discover whethe …

  • IPv4 NLRI with IPv6 Next Hop Use Cases
    , 1998
    Co-Authors: Gyan Mishra
    Abstract:

    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 core from IPv4 to IPv6 being able to continue to support legacy IPv4, VPN-IPv4, and Multicast VPN IPv4 customers. Multiprotocol BGP (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 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI). [RFC5549] specifies the extensions necessary to allow advertising IPv4 NLRI or VPN-IPv4 NLRI with a Next Hop Address that belongs to the IPv6 protocol. 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 also belong to the IPv6 Protocol. [RFC5549] 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 dynamically discover whether they can exchange IPv4 NLRI and VPN-IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 Next Hop. With this new MP-BGP capability exchange allows the BGP peering session to act as a pure transport to allow the session to carry Address Family Identifier (AFI) and the Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) for both IPv4 and IPv6. This document describes the critical use case and OPEX savings of being able to leverage the MP-BGP capability exchange usage as a pure transport allowing both IPv4 and IPv6 to be carried over the same BGP TCP session. By doing so, allows for the elimination of Dual Stacking on the PE-CE connections making the peering IPv6-ONLY to now carry both IPv4 and IPv6 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI). This document al …

Cisco Systems – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5640 Category
    , 2009
    Co-Authors: Clarence Filsfils, P. Mohapatra, C. Pignataro, Cisco Systems
    Abstract:

    Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires Payloads transported over a Softwire mesh service (as defined by BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) information exchange) often carry a number of identifiable, distinct flows. It can, in some circumstances, be desirable to distribute these flows over the equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network. Currently, the payload of a packet entering the Softwire can only be interpreted by the ingress and egress routers. Thus, the load-balancing decision of a core router is only based on the encapsulating header, presenting much less entropy than available in the payload or the encapsulated header since the Softwire encapsulation acts in a tunneling fashion. This document describes a method for achieving comparable load-balancing efficiency in a network carrying Softwire mesh service over Layer Two Tunneling Protocol– Version 3 (L2TPv3) over IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) encapsulation to what would be achieved without such encapsulation. 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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as th

  • Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5640 Category
    , 2009
    Co-Authors: Clarence Filsfils, P. Mohapatra, C. Pignataro, Cisco Systems
    Abstract:

    Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires Payloads transported over a Softwire mesh service (as defined by BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) information exchange) often carry a number of identifiable, distinct flows. It can, in some circumstances, be desirable to distribute these flows over the equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network. Currently, the payload of a packet entering the Softwire can only be interpreted by the ingress and egress routers. Thus, the load-balancing decision of a core router is only based on the encapsulating header, presenting much less entropy than available in the payload or the encapsulated header since the Softwire encapsulation acts in a tunneling fashion. This document describes a method for achieving comparable load-balancing efficiency in a network carrying Softwire mesh service over Layer Two Tunneling Protocol– Version 3 (L2TPv3) over IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) encapsulation to what would be achieved without such encapsulation. 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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust’s Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this documen

Clarence Filsfils – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires
    , 2009
    Co-Authors: Pradosh Mohapatra, Carlos M. Pignataro, Clarence Filsfils
    Abstract:

    Payloads carried over a Softwire mesh service as defined by BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) information exchange often carry a number of identifiable, distinct flows. It can in some circumstances be desirable to distribute these flows over the equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network. Currently, the payload of a packet entering the Softwire can only be interpreted by the ingress and egress routers. Thus the load balancing decision of a core router is only based on the encapsulating header, presenting much less entropy than available in the payload or the encapsulated header since the Softwire encapsulation acts in a tunneling fashion. This document describes a method for achieving comparable load balancing efficiency in a network carrying Softwire mesh service over Layer Two Tunneling Protocol – Version 3 (L2TPv3) over IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) encapsulation to what would be achieved without such encapsulation.

  • Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5640 Category
    , 2009
    Co-Authors: Clarence Filsfils, P. Mohapatra, C. Pignataro, Cisco Systems
    Abstract:

    Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires Payloads transported over a Softwire mesh service (as defined by BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) information exchange) often carry a number of identifiable, distinct flows. It can, in some circumstances, be desirable to distribute these flows over the equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network. Currently, the payload of a packet entering the Softwire can only be interpreted by the ingress and egress routers. Thus, the load-balancing decision of a core router is only based on the encapsulating header, presenting much less entropy than available in the payload or the encapsulated header since the Softwire encapsulation acts in a tunneling fashion. This document describes a method for achieving comparable load-balancing efficiency in a network carrying Softwire mesh service over Layer Two Tunneling Protocol- Version 3 (L2TPv3) over IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) encapsulation to what would be achieved without such encapsulation. 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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as th

  • Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5640 Category
    , 2009
    Co-Authors: Clarence Filsfils, P. Mohapatra, C. Pignataro, Cisco Systems
    Abstract:

    Load-Balancing for Mesh Softwires Payloads transported over a Softwire mesh service (as defined by BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) information exchange) often carry a number of identifiable, distinct flows. It can, in some circumstances, be desirable to distribute these flows over the equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network. Currently, the payload of a packet entering the Softwire can only be interpreted by the ingress and egress routers. Thus, the load-balancing decision of a core router is only based on the encapsulating header, presenting much less entropy than available in the payload or the encapsulated header since the Softwire encapsulation acts in a tunneling fashion. This document describes a method for achieving comparable load-balancing efficiency in a network carrying Softwire mesh service over Layer Two Tunneling Protocol- Version 3 (L2TPv3) over IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) encapsulation to what would be achieved without such encapsulation. 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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust’s Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this documen