Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)]

Sat May 3 09:26:27 UTC 2014

Subject: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Date: Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:58:42PM -0600 Quoting Chris Grundemann (cgrundemann at gmail.com):

> Would you expound a bit on what you mean here? I don't quite follow but I
> am very interested to understand the issue.

The fact that you need v4 space to build a MPLS backbone is a very good
reason to not waste a /10 on CGN crap. 

Ideally, we would have a solution where an entire MPLS infrastructure
could be built without v4 space, demoting v4 to a legacy application
inside a VRF, but the MPLS standards wg seems content with status quo.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
I wish I was a sex-starved manicurist found dead in the Bronx!!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140503/c0e66267/attachment.sig>