[c-nsp] LDPv6 Census Check

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Tue Jun 16 11:09:24 UTC 2020


On 16/Jun/20 12:00, adamv0025 at netconsultings.com wrote:

> Hence my earlier comment on why I think it's not commercially feasible to switch to v6 control plane,

Personally, I've never been a fan of a single-stack backbone. I can,
however, understand the use-case where a new or growing network is
unable to obtain anymore IPv4 space and don't want to use RFC 1918 space
(yuck!).


>  (the only thing I'd be getting is MPLS-IPv6 which I already have (or have had) via L3VPN-6VPE),

Well, not quite.

What you currently have with 6PE is IPv6 tunneled inside MPLSv4 which
runs over IPv4. While you get the benefits of MPLS forwarding for your
IPv6 traffic, you now create a condition where your IPv6 network is in
the hands of your IPv4 network. Granted, there are many folk that run
6PE, so whether the fate-sharing is of concern to you or not is an
exercise left up to the reader. Personally, I'd rather avoid
fate-sharing whenever I can.

On the other hand, MPLSv6 is native, runs over IPv6 and does not depend
on IPv4 at all.

Ultimately, plenty of energy will need to go into supporting the
additional VPN services that go beyond plain-old MPLSv6 switching. But
that can only be promoted with the vendors after we jump the first
hurdle of deploying the 1st application, basic MPLSv6 switching; get
that widely adopted, and create more awareness within the vendor
community about its overall viability.

80% of our network currently runs LDPv6 and switches IPv6 traffic in
MPLSv6. Our immediate task is to get the remaining 20% supported (IOS
XE) as well.


> But I'm thankful to you for doing the "ice breaking" for the rest of the community.  

As Eriq La Salle unashamedly claimed in the 1988 Eddie Murphy picture,
Coming to America, "You know me, anything for the kids :-)".

Mark.




More information about the NANOG mailing list