[c-nsp] LDPv6 Census Check
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Thu Jun 11 13:01:41 UTC 2020
On 11/Jun/20 14:43, Gert Doering wrote:
> Not "in addition to" but "to throw out the IPv4 part" :-)
That's another view-point, yes.
There are plenty of networks that can't afford to keep buying IPv4 on
the open market. They want to go single-stack IPv6.
Today, you would need to build a 6PE network if you want MPLS support in
your IPv6-only network, which still requires IPv4. Private IPv4 address
space works, but some people like it, some don't, and more importantly,
you still carry around IPv4.
You could try the SRv6 gravy, but now you probably need new kit. What's
the SRv6 business-case? Well, one would say you save millions of $$ not
buying IPv4, but now you've spent money supporting SRv6.
LDPv6 can be supported by any platform that supports MPLS today. No
money out the door. Cisco would need to develop code for both LDPv6 and
SRv6 anyway, so no harm done on that side.
As we used to say in Vladivostok, "It's simple physics :-)".
> (If I had LDPv6 today, I wouldn't actually change the existing network
> today. But for the next round of rebuilding things, it would be something
> to consider...)
Give your favorite Cisco AM a shout-out. I promise, they are probably
too young to remember your 6500/7600 tickets :-).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the NANOG