Re: RFC 5549 - IPv4 Routes with IPv6 next-hop - Does it really exists?

[Vincent Bernat <bernat () luffy cx>]

Hello,

This is implemented in FRR and will also be available in BIRD 2.0.8.
Linux accepts IPv6 next-hop for IPv4 natively since 5.3 (no tunnels).
This is the solution Cumulus is advocating to its users, so I suppose
they have some real users behind that. Juniper also supports RFC 5549
but, from the documentation, the forwarding part is done using
lightweight tunnels.

Maybe David Ahern is reading this list and could comment more. I don't
use this solution myself as the vendor support is still quite limited
but if I were to start a network from scratch, I would definitively go
for it.
-- 
Let the machine do the dirty work.
            - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)

 ――――――― Original Message ―――――――
 From: Douglas Fischer <fischerdouglas () gmail com>
 Sent: 29 juillet 2020 02:51 -03
 Subject: RFC 5549 - IPv4 Routes with IPv6 next-hop - Does it really exists?
 To: nanog () nanog org

> Let's just jump all the arguing about lack of IPv4, the need of IPv6, and
> etc...
>
> I must confess that I don't know all the RFCs.
> I would like it, but I don't!
>
> And today, I reached on https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5549
>
> I knew that was possible to transfer v4 routes over v6 BGP sessions, or v6
> routes over v4 BGP sessions.
> But I got surprised when I saw this youtube vídeo of AMS-IX guys
> considering use a v6 only Lan, and doing v6 next-hops to v4 routes.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJOtfiHDCMw
>
> Well... I guess that idea didn't go to production.
>
>
>
> But the questions are:
> There is any network that really implements RFC5549?
> Can anyone share some information about it?