[c-nsp] LDPv6 Census Check
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Thu Jun 11 11:13:33 UTC 2020
On 11/Jun/20 13:03, Drikus Brits wrote:
> We're deploying some new POPs with a mix of IOS-XR as borders, BNG and
> PEs and IOS-XE for LNSs. LDPv6 would be awesome to have availabke on
> IOS-XE alongside LDPv4. We're being pushed by Cisco to go one flavour
> or another of SR as well by Cisco, but i'd much prefer to have LDPv4 &
> LDPv6 right now.
> We have some buying power with Cisco at the moment, so let me know how
> I can help from the land 'down under'.
If you can get your AM to get in touch with the ASR920 and ASR1000 BU's
to ask for LDPv6, that will help a great deal. Cisco are saying "no one"
is asking for LDPv6, forgetting that it's more about IPv6, than other
lower/higher-level services it can support, LDPv6 included.
As with you, they are trying to shove SRv6 down our throats, which can
only come on an NCS540 for the moment, which is odd since that runs IOS
XR, which supports LDPv6. So basically, swap out tons of boxes to get a
feature that can easily be coded for in existing hardware... makes you
wonder about the thought-process;
It's been a crazy two weeks with our Cisco AM's and the platform TME's
on heated calls about this that it's almost old testament biblical :-).
It's at the stage where it's going up the chain to the BU's who will
make the final call. So if they can get some noise from you as well, it
certainly won't hurt.
You don't need new hardware features on the ASR920 or ASR1000 to support
LDPv6. You might do for SRv6. Either way, both platforms would need both
features developed in code, and I think it's safe to assume which one
will be practically easier to build and roll-out to the entire MPLS
customer base, today.
More information about the NANOG