Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing, Why?

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at
Thu Jun 18 12:56:01 UTC 2020

On 18/Jun/20 14:30, adamv0025 at wrote:

> Hence our current strategy is to stay on IPv4 control-plane (and IPv4 management plane) as it suits, and for the foreseeable future will suite, all our needs (which are to transport v4&v6 data packets via L2&L3 MPLS VPN services), there are simply more important projects than to experiment with v6 control-plane, like for instance perfecting/securing the v6 customer facing services (delivered over the underlying v4 signalled MPLS infrastructure, that no customer really cares about). 

Fair enough.

> But I understand your frustrations case it seems like you're taking the bullet for us late adopters and in a sense you are, cause say in 10 years from now when I decide to migrate to v6 control-plane and management-plane as then it might be viewed as common courtesy, it will be all there on a silver plate waiting for me allowing for a relatively effortless and painless move. All thanks to you fighting the good fight today.    

You better hope and pray I don't run out wine. Equipment manufacturers
make me drink, and I like my wine :-).

> And I'd say the future is now, cause there is an actual need for v6 services. 
> But need for v6 control & management plane? - It's not like operators are losing business opportunities not having that. (they might even be viewed as conservative->stable, which might be preferred by some customers). 

Well, the other way to look at it, especially if you are a Broadband or
mobile network operator, is what your plan is when you can no longer
stretch the IPv4 you have, can no longer obtain IPv4 from an RIR, and
can't afford to buy IPv4 on the open market.

For mobile operators, paying US$50 million/year in CGN line cards and
licensing is not even a rounding error on the books. But the telco space
has been under pressure for some time now, further amplified and
accelerated this Coronavirus pandemic. Even though mobile networks are
ATM machines printing money for the shareholders, they probably made
more money in the days of SMS than they do now building and selling
4G/5G packet cores. At some point, that US$50 million/year is going to
start getting some ex-co and Board level visibility, as capex spend
begins to pinch revenue because of the data demands of subscribers, and
the ever-falling ARPU's to go along with it.

Perhaps, at that point, massive IPv6 deployment in the mobile space is
what will wake everyone else up, as the race to grab on to every $$


More information about the NANOG mailing list