[c-nsp] LDPv6 Census Check

adamv0025 at netconsultings.com adamv0025 at netconsultings.com
Thu Jun 11 21:45:41 UTC 2020

> From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:59 PM
> > No, my line of reasoning is if you have MPLS LSPs signalled over v4 I see no
> point having them signalled also over v6 in parallel.
> It's not about signaling IPv4 LSP's over IPv6.
> LDPv4 creates IPv4 FEC's.
> LDPv6 creates IPv6 FEC's.
> The idea is to create IPv6 FEC's so that IPv6 traffic can be label-switched in
> the network natively, allowing you to remove BGPv6 in a native dual-stack
> core.
Right I see what you are striving to achieve is migrate from BGP in a core to a BGP free core but not leveraging 6PE or 6VPE? 

> As you can see, just as with IPv4, IPv6 packets are now being MPLS-switched
> in the core, allowing you to remove BGPv6 in the core and simplify
> operations in that area of the network.
> So this is native MPLSv6. It's not 6PE or 6VPE.
So considering you already had v4 FECs wouldn't it be simpler to do 6PE/6VPE, what do you see as drawbacks of these compared to native MPLSv6 please?
> > Apart from X months worth of functionality, performance, scalability and
> interworking testing -network wide code upgrades to address the bugs
> found during the testing process and then finally rollout across the core and
> possibly even migration from LDPv4 to LDPv6, involving dozens of people
> from Arch, Design, OPS, Project management, etc... with potential for things
> to break while making changes in live network.
> Which you wouldn't have to do with SRv6, because you trust the vendors?
Well my point was that if v4 FECs would be enough to carry v6 traffic then I wouldn't need SRv6 nor LDPv6, hence I'm curious to hear from you about the benefits of v6 FEC over v4 FEC (or in other words MPLSv6 vs 6PE/6VPE). 


More information about the NANOG mailing list