Hi Mark, It is actually testing against existing LDP IPv4 implementations when the LSR compliant to this draft sends LDP IPv6 FECs and LDP IPv6 addresses over the LDP IPv4 session. Here is a brief summary of the issues as I described to the list this summer: " When an LSR which supports LDP IPv6 according to this draft is in a LAN with a broadcast interface, it can peer with LSRs which support this draft and LSRs which do not. When it peers using IPv4 LDP control plane with an LSR which does not support this draft, we have seen during our testing an issue that the advertisement of IPv6 addresses or IPv6 FECs to that peer will cause it to bring down the IPv4 LDP session. In other words, there are deployed LDP implementations which are compliant to RFC 5036 for LDP IPv4 but are not compliant to RFC 5036 when it comes to handling IPv6 address or IPv6 FECs over an LDP IPv4 session. This is making us very concerned that when users enable dual-stack LDP IPv4/IPv6, they will bring down LDP IPv4 sessions which have been working in a multi-vendor environments for so many years. " Regards, Mustapha. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.tinka@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 1:04 AM > To: mpls@xxxxxxxx > Cc: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha); ietf@xxxxxxxx; IETF-Announce > Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-14.txt> (Updates to LDP for > IPv6) to Proposed Standard > > On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 07:21:42 PM Aissaoui, Mustapha > (Mustapha) wrote: > > > Hi Adrian and all, > > I was the one who raised the interop issues we found while testing our > > implementation of LDP IPv6 against existing and deployed > > implementations. > > Mustapha, I'm curious - are testing against other LDPv6 implementations, or LDPv4 > implementations? > > Mark.