[171504] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson)
Sat May 3 05:26:36 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 11:26:27 +0200
From: =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
To: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC1-dtkp2rjm=7tARPJNCXjky11u0S_R7xtumSzJ-M4tiNz=vg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--soWJpSPh+l8Y6Fy7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices =
IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Date: Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:58:42PM -0600 Quo=
ting Chris Grundemann (cgrundemann@gmail.com):
> Would you expound a bit on what you mean here? I don't quite follow but I
> am very interested to understand the issue.
The fact that you need v4 space to build a MPLS backbone is a very good
reason to not waste a /10 on CGN crap.=20
Ideally, we would have a solution where an entire MPLS infrastructure
could be built without v4 space, demoting v4 to a legacy application
inside a VRF, but the MPLS standards wg seems content with status quo.
--=20
M=C3=A5ns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
I wish I was a sex-starved manicurist found dead in the Bronx!!
--soWJpSPh+l8Y6Fy7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlNktkMACgkQ02/pMZDM1cUBLACfbda1+xxSLYCA1bh9LQ0M1Y2r
8QsAnjjjxQxC+Y09icyPdoDitqwgTg+u
=WzvR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--soWJpSPh+l8Y6Fy7--
