[168314] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John van Oppen)
Sun Jan 19 04:10:17 2014
From: John van Oppen <jvanoppen@spectrumnet.us>
To: 'joel jaeggli' <joelja@bogus.com>, "'mark.tinka@seacom.mu'"
<mark.tinka@seacom.mu>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:10:02 +0000
In-Reply-To: <52DACE25.1060500@bogus.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
We ended up with 6PE to make the v6 support on our cisco based network beha=
ve the same way as v4, IE use TE tunnels, etc. Given the v4 MPLS this wa=
s the only real way to make it the same.
-----Original Message-----
From: joel jaeggli [mailto:joelja@bogus.com]=20
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 10:56 AM
To: John van Oppen; 'mark.tinka@seacom.mu'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency
On 1/18/14, 10:30 AM, John van Oppen wrote:
> This is exactly what pushed us into 6PE... it was the only way to make =
performance similar to v4 from a routing standpoint.
This statement is a bit facile... What platform are you referring to?
> John @ AS11404
>=20
>=20
