IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop
draft-ietf-intarea-v4-via-v6-05

Internet Area Working Group                                J. Chroboczek
Internet-Draft                                 IRIF, University of Paris
Intended status: Standards Track                               W. Kumari
Expires: 29 May 2026                                         Google, LLC
                                                    T. Høiland-Jørgensen
                                                                 Red Hat
                                                        25 November 2025

                   IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop
                    draft-ietf-intarea-v4-via-v6-05

Abstract

   This document proposes "v4-via-v6" routing, a technique that uses
   IPv6 next-hop addresses for routing IPv4 packets, thus making it
   possible to route IPv4 packets across a network where routers have
   not been assigned IPv4 addresses.  The document both describes the
   technique, as well as discussing its operational implications.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   The latest revision of this draft can be found at
   https://wkumari.github.io/draft-chroboczek-intarea-v4-via-v6/draft-
   ietf-intarea-v4-via-v6.html.  Status information for this document
   may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-
   v4-via-v6/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Internet Area Working
   Group Working Group mailing list (mailto:[email protected]), which is
   archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/.
   Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/wkumari/draft-chroboczek-intarea-v4-via-v6.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 May 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Structure of the routing table  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Operation of the forwarding plane . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Operation of routing protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  ICMP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  Arista EOS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  The Babel routing protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Linux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.3.1.  Example:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.4.  Mikrotik RouterOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.4.1.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.5.  Cisco NX-OS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     Version 03-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     Version 02-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

     Version 01-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     Version 00-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   The dominant form of routing in the Internet is next-hop routing,
   where a routing protocol constructs a routing table which is used by
   a forwarding process to forward packets.  The routing table is a data
   structure that maps network prefixes in a given family (IPv4 or IPv6)
   to next hops, pairs of an outgoing interface and a neighbor's network
   address, for example:

       destination                      next hop
     2001:db8:0:1::/64               eth0, fe80::1234:5678
     203.0.113.0/24                  eth0, 192.0.2.1

   When a packet is routed according to a given routing table entry, the
   forwarding plane typically maps the next-hop address to a link-layer
   address (a "MAC address") by using a neighbor discovery protocol (for
   example the Neighbor Discovery protocol (ND) [RFC4861] in the case of
   IPv6 over Ethernet, and the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
   [RFC0826] in the case of IPv4 over Ethernet).  The link-layer address
   is then used to construct the link-layer frames that encapsulate
   forwarded packets.

   It is apparent from the description above that there is no
   fundamental reason why the destination prefix and the next-hop
   address should be in the same address family: there is nothing
   preventing an IPv6 packet from being routed through a next hop with
   an IPv4 address (in which case the next hop's MAC address will be
   obtained using ARP), or, conversely, an IPv4 packet from being routed
   through a next hop with an IPv6 address.  (In fact, it is even
   possible to store link-layer addresses directly in the next-hop entry
   of the routing table, thus avoiding the use of an address resolution
   protocol altogether, which was commonly done in networks using the
   OSI protocol suite.)

   This document focuses on the specific case of routing IPv4 packets
   through an IPv6 next-hop.  This case is particularly interesting,
   since it makes it possible to build networks that have no IPv4
   addresses except at the edges and still provide IPv4 connectivity to
   edge hosts.  In addition, since an IPv6 next hop can use a link-local
   address that is autonomously configured, the use of such routes
   enables a mode of operation where the network core has no statically
   assigned IP addresses of either family, which significantly reduces
   the amount of manual configuration required.  (See also [RFC7404] for
   a discussion of the issues involved with such an approach.)

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

   We call a route towards an IPv4 prefix that uses an IPv6 next hop a
   "v4-via-v6" route.  V4-via-v6 routing is not restricted to routers,
   and could usefully be applied to hosts, but doing so would require
   solving the issue of host configuration, for example by extending
   either DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 to publish an IPv4 default route with an IPv6
   next hop, which is out of scope for this document.

   [RFC8950] discusses advertising of IPv4 Network Layer Reachability
   Information (NLRI) with a next-hop address that belongs to the IPv6
   protocol, but confines itself to how this is carried and advertised
   in the BGP protocol.  This document, on the other hand, discusses the
   concept of v4-via-v6 routes independently of any specific routing
   protocol, their design and operational considerations, and the
   implications of using them.

   { Editor note, to be removed before publication.  This document is
   heavily based on draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6.  When draft-ietf-babel-
   v4viav6 was going through IESG eval, Warren raised concerns that
   something this fundamental deserved to be documented in a separate,
   standalone document, so that it can be more fully discussed, and,
   more importantly, referenced cleanly in the future.}

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Operation

   Next-hop routing is implemented by two separate components, the
   routing protocol and the forwarding plane, that communicate through a
   shared data structure, the routing table.

3.1.  Structure of the routing table

   The routing table is a data structure that maps address prefixes to
   next-hops, pairs of the form (interface, address).  In traditional
   next-hop routing, the routing table maps IPv4 prefixes to IPv4 next
   hops, and IPv6 addresses to IPv6 next hops.  With v4-via-v6 routing,
   the routing table is extended so that an IPv4 prefix may map to
   either an IPv6 or an IPv4 next hop.

   Resolution may be recursive: the next-hop may itself be a prefix that
   requires further resolution to map to the outgoing interface and L2
   address.  V4-via-v6 routing does not prevent recursive resolution.

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

3.2.  Operation of the forwarding plane

   The forwarding plane is the part of the routing implementation that
   is executed for every forwarded packet.  As a packet arrives, the
   forwarding plane consults the routing table, selects a single route
   matching the packet, and forwards the packet through the outgoing
   interface to the associated next-hop address.

   With v4-via-v6 routing, the address family of the next-hop address is
   no longer determined by the address family of the prefix: since the
   routing table may map an IPv4 prefix to either an IPv4 or an IPv6
   next-hop, the forwarding plane must be able to determine, on a per-
   packet basis, which address resolution protocol (ARP for IPv4, ND for
   IPv6) to consult.

3.3.  Operation of routing protocols

   The routing protocol is the part of the routing implementation that
   is executed asynchronously from the forwarding plane, and whose role
   is to build the routing table.  Since v4-via-v6 routing is a
   generalization of traditional next-hop routing, v4-via-v6 can
   interoperate with existing routing protocols: a traditional routing
   protocol produces a traditional next-hop routing table, which can be
   used by an implementation supporting v4-via-v6 routing.

   However, in order to use the additional flexibility provided by
   v4-via-v6 routing, routing protocols need to be extended with the
   ability to populate the routing table with v4-via-v6 routes when an
   IPv4 address is not available or when the available IPv4 addresses
   are not suitable for use as a next-hop.

   Some protocols already support the advertisement of IPv4 routes with
   an IPv6 next-hop, including Babel [RFC9229] and BGP [RFC8950].  Other
   protocol advertise both IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes over a single
   neighbor; these include:

   *  Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF ([RFC4915])

   *  Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in IS-IS ([RFC5120])

   While both of these employ a common control plane, they use separate
   data planes, and therefore don't implement v4-via-v6 routing.

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

4.  ICMP Considerations

   The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv4, or simply ICMP)
   [RFC0792] is a protocol related to IPv4 that is primarily used to
   carry diagnostic and debugging information.  ICMPv4 packets may be
   originated by end hosts (e.g., the "destination unreachable, port
   unreachable" ICMPv4 packet), but they may also be originated by
   intermediate routers (e.g., most other kinds of "destination
   unreachable" packets).

   Some protocols deployed in the Internet rely on ICMPv4 packets sent
   by intermediate routers.  Most notably, path MTU Discovery (PMTUd)
   [RFC1191] is an algorithm executed by end hosts to discover the
   maximum packet size that a route is able to carry.  While there exist
   variants of PMTUd that are purely end-to-end [RFC4821], the variant
   most commonly deployed in the Internet has a hard dependency on
   ICMPv4 packets originated by intermediate routers: if intermediate
   routers are unable to send ICMPv4 packets, PMTUd may lead to
   persistent black-holing of IPv4 traffic.

   A router must therefore be able to generate ICMP Destination
   Unreachable messages ([RFC1812] Section 5.2.7.1).  The source address
   of these messages must be one of the addresses assigned to the
   outgoing interface; if no such address has been assigned, then one of
   the other addresses assigned to the router, known as the "router-id",
   must be used ([RFC1812] Section 4.3.2.4).

   Routers implementing the mechanism described in this document do not
   need to have any IPv4 addresses assigned to any of their interfaces,
   and [RFC1812] does not specify what happens if no router-id has been
   assigned.  If a router does not have any IPv4 addresses assigned, the
   router MUST use the dummy address 192.0.0.8 as the source address of
   outgoing ICMP packets ([RFC7600], Section 4.8, Requirement R-22).

   Using the dummy address as the source of ICMPv4 packet causes a
   number of drawbacks:

   *  using the same address on multiple routers may hamper debugging
      and fault isolation, e.g., when using the _traceroute_ utility
      (but see [I-D.draft-ietf-intarea-extended-icmp-nodeid] for a
      possible solution to this problem);

   *  packets originating from 192.0.0.8 might be considered as spoofed
      traffic and dropped by firewalls at network boundaries.

   For these reasons, even if a router performs v4-via-v6 routing on all
   interfaces, it SHOULD be assigned at least one IPv4 address.

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

5.  Implementation Status

   ( This section to be removed before publication. )

   As this document does not really define a protocol, this
   implementation status section is much less formal.  Instead, it is
   being used as a place to list implementations that are known to
   support this functionality, examples, notes, etc.  This information
   is provided as a guide to the reader, and is not intended to be a
   complete list, nor endorsement, etc.  If you know of an
   implementation which is not listed, please let the authors know.

5.1.  Arista EOS

   Arista has supported static IPv4 routes with IPv6 nexthops since EOS-
   4.30.1.

5.2.  The Babel routing protocol

   As noted above, this document is heavily based on RFC9229 (nee draft-
   ietf-babel-v4viav6), and this functionality is supported by babeld.

   Pasted below is email sent to the babel mailing list (archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/
   QtFi3F4TFfF7fXXlkHSpEnuT44Y/)

   An IPv4 route across three nodes with IPv6 addresses only:

  $ ip route show 10.0.0.2
  10.0.0.2 via inet6 fe80::216:3eff:fe00:1 dev lxcbr0 proto babel onlink

   Here's how it's logged by babeld:

  10.0.0.2/32 from 0.0.0.0/0 metric 384 (384) refmetric 288 id
  02:16:3e:ff:fe:9a:5e:22 seqno 36425 chan (255) age 15 via lxcbr0 neigh
  fe80::216:3eff:fe00:1 (installed)

   Traceroute is a little confusing:

   $ traceroute 10.0.0.2
   traceroute to 10.0.0.2 (10.0.0.2), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
    1  192.0.0.8 (192.0.0.8)  0.079 ms  0.019 ms  0.014 ms
    2  192.0.0.8 (192.0.0.8)  0.040 ms  0.023 ms  0.042 ms
    3  192.0.0.8 (192.0.0.8)  0.061 ms  0.030 ms  0.030 ms
    4  10.0.0.2 (10.0.0.2)  0.060 ms  0.040 ms  0.039 ms

   PMTUD works fine (thanks to Toke):

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

   19:58:47.402871 IP 192.168.0.27.60046 > 10.0.0.2.22: Flags [.],\
   seq 33:1481, ack 33, win 502, options [nop,nop,TS val 917354570\
   ecr 1849974691], length 1448
   19:58:47.402874 IP 192.168.0.27.60046 > 10.0.0.2.22: Flags [P.],\
   seq 1481:1537, ack 33, win 502, options [nop,nop,TS val 917354570\
   ecr 1849974691], length 56
   19:58:47.402906 IP 192.0.0.8 > 192.168.0.27: ICMP 10.0.0.2 \
   unreachable- need to frag (mtu 1420), length 556
   19:58:47.402919 IP 10.0.0.2.22 > 192.168.0.27.60046: Flags [.],\
   ack 33, win 509, options [nop,nop,TS val 1849974692 \
   ecr 917354569,nop,nop,sac 1 {1481:1537}], length 0
   19:58:47.402934 IP 192.168.0.27.60046 > 10.0.0.2.22: Flags [.], \
   seq 33:1401, ack 33, win 502, options [nop,nop,TS val 917354570 \
   ecr 1849974692], length 1368

   -- Juliusz

5.3.  Linux

   Linux has supported v4-via-v6 routes since kernel version 5.2,
   released on 2019-07-07.

5.3.1.  Example:

   rincewind ~ #
   ip -4 r a 192.0.2.23/32 via inet6 2001:db8::2342

   rincewind ~ # ip r s 192.0.2.23/32
   192.0.2.23 via inet6 2001:db8::2342 dev wlp36s0.25

5.4.  Mikrotik RouterOS

   Mikrotik RouterOS has supported v4-via-v6 routes since (at least)
   version 7.11beta2

   {Editor note: I'm not sure when support was added.  I tested this in
   Version 7.11beta2, and it worked there, but I believe that this
   functionality has existed for a while.  I'll try to find out when it
   was added.}

5.4.1.  Example

  [wkumari@Dulles-CCR] /ip/route> print
  Flags: D - DYNAMIC; I - INACTIVE, A - ACTIVE; c - CONNECT, s - STATIC,
  d -DHCP, v - VPN; H - HW-OFFLOADED
  Columns: DST-ADDRESS, GATEWAY, DISTANCE
  #      DST-ADDRESS       GATEWAY                             DISTANCE
  0  As  192.0.2.0/24      fe80::201:5cff:feb2:1646%1_Comcast         1

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

5.5.  Cisco NX-OS

   Cisco NX-OS has supported v4-via-v6 routes "for more than 8 years" --
   Krishnaswamy Ananthamurthy

6.  Operational Considerations

   Even though v4-via-v6 routes are similar in structure to traditional
   next-hop routes, at least some monitoring and management tools will
   not be able to interpret them.  Deployment of v4-via-v6 routing in a
   network will require testing and updating of all tools and scripts
   that manipulate or examine routes.

   V4-via-v6 routing encourages a model of deployment where some routers
   have no IPv4 addresses even though they forward IPv4 traffic.  Such
   routers make debugging of IPv4 routing issues somewhat more
   difficult, most notably by making the output of the _traceroute_
   utility less informative than it would otherwise be (see
   Section Section 4).  Even if the procedures described in
   [I-D.draft-ietf-intarea-extended-icmp-nodeid] are deployed on all
   such routers, older versions of _traceroute_ will not be able to
   interpret the additional information.  Network administrators might
   want to provision IPv4 addresses on all routers in order to simplify
   debugging.

7.  Security Considerations

   The techniques described in this document make routing more flexible
   by allowing IPv4 routes to propagate across a section of a network
   that has only been assigned IPv6 addresses.  This additional
   flexibility might invalidate otherwise reasonable assumptions made by
   network administrators, which could potentially cause security
   issues.

   For example, if an island of IPv4-only hosts is separated from the
   IPv4 Internet by routers that have not been assigned IPv4 addresses,
   a network administrator might reasonably assume that the IPv4-only
   hosts are unreachable from the IPv4 Internet.  This assumption is
   broken if the intermediary routers implement v4-via-v6 routing, which
   might make the IPv4-only hosts reachable from the IPv4 Internet.  If
   this is not desirable, then the network administrator must filter out
   the undesirable traffic in the forwarding plane by implementing
   suitable packet filtering rules.

8.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA actions are requested by this document.

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1812]  Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
              RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1812>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7600]  Despres, R., Jiang, S., Ed., Penno, R., Lee, Y., Chen, G.,
              and M. Chen, "IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - A
              Stateless Solution (4rd)", RFC 7600, DOI 10.17487/RFC7600,
              July 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7600>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.draft-ietf-intarea-extended-icmp-nodeid]
              Fenner, B. and R. Thomas, "Adding Extensions to ICMP
              Errors for Originating Node Identification", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-intarea-extended-
              icmp-nodeid-04, 19 August 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea-
              extended-icmp-nodeid-04>.

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc792>.

   [RFC0826]  Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
              Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
              Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37,
              RFC 826, DOI 10.17487/RFC0826, November 1982,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc826>.

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1191>.

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4821>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4915]  Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
              Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
              RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4915>.

   [RFC5120]  Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
              Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
              Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5120>.

   [RFC7404]  Behringer, M. and E. Vyncke, "Using Only Link-Local
              Addressing inside an IPv6 Network", RFC 7404,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7404, November 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7404>.

   [RFC8950]  Litkowski, S., Agrawal, S., Ananthamurthy, K., and K.
              Patel, "Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability
              Information (NLRI) with an IPv6 Next Hop", RFC 8950,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8950, November 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8950>.

   [RFC9229]  Chroboczek, J., "IPv4 Routes with an IPv6 Next Hop in the
              Babel Routing Protocol", RFC 9229, DOI 10.17487/RFC9229,
              May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9229>.

Acknowledgments

   This document is based on [RFC9229], which was produced by the IETF
   Babel working group.

   We are grateful to Joe Abley, Krishnaswamy Ananthamurthy, Vint Cerf,
   Joe Clarke, Lorenzo Colitti, Bill Fenner, Tobias Fiebig, John
   Gilmore, Bob Hinden, Jen Linkova, David Lamparter, Gyan Mishra, tom
   petch, Herbie Robinson, Behcet Sarikaya, David Schinazi, Ole Troan,
   and Éric Vyncke for helpful comments and suggestions about this
   document.

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

Changes

   This section is to be removed before publication, and the primary
   change log is the git repository.  This is just a place to note some
   of the more substantive changes.

Version 03-04

   *  Added a section about operational considerations.

   *  Made it clear that ARP/ND are not necessarily used.

   *  Removed any mention of v4-only, since it's not quite correct that
      v4-via-v6 is v4-only.

Version 02-03

   *  Warren is a smart guy, but he still pushed a branch instead of the
      main one, so -03 is actually what -02 should have been.

Version 01-02

   *  Addressed comments from Vint and Jen.

Version 00-01

   *  Added note that this works just as well for IPv6 routes with an
      IPv4 next hop. (Éric Vyncke)

   *  Cisco NX-OS has supported v4-via-v6 routes "for more than 8 years"
      (Krishnaswamy Ananthamurthy)

   *  Mention recursive next hops, and that the next hop may be a
      prefix.  (Krishnaswamy Ananthamurthy)

   *  Hosts are routers too!  (David Lamparter)

   *  Removed the claim that it's mainly a UI issue.

Authors' Addresses

   Juliusz Chroboczek
   IRIF, University of Paris
   Case 7014
   75205 Paris Cedex 13
   France
   Email: [email protected]

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                  v4-via-v6                  November 2025

   Warren Kumari
   Google, LLC
   Email: [email protected]

   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
   Red Hat
   Email: [email protected]

Chroboczek, et al.         Expires 29 May 2026                 [Page 13]