Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)]
Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
rajiva at cisco.com
Tue May 6 09:23:17 UTC 2014
> inside a VRF, but the MPLS standards wg seems content with status quo.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6
The WG is pretty close to wrap this up (back to the 3rd WGLC very soon).
But frankly admitting, dual-stacking facilitated more issues than I expected early on.
Cheers,
Rajiv
> On May 3, 2014, at 5:29 AM, "Måns Nilsson" <mansaxel at besserwisser.org> wrote:
>
> 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!!
More information about the NANOG
mailing list