[168315] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Saku Ytti)
Sun Jan 19 05:11:14 2014
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:10:47 +0200
From: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <AF24AE2D4A4D334FB9B667985E2AE7632942B949@mail1-sea.office.spectrumnet.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On (2014-01-19 09:10 +0000), John van Oppen wrote:
> We ended up with 6PE to make the v6 support on our cisco based network behave the same way as v4, IE use TE tunnels, etc. Given the v4 MPLS this was the only real way to make it the same.
Fully agreed. I have no problem being in 6PE until fork-lift in some future to
IPv6 core and 4PE.
Signalling AFI in core and AFI sold to customer have little codependency.
People have too sentimental view on this, if you label your IPv4 it is silly
not to run 6PE, you're just creating complexity and removing functionality.
--
++ytti
