[171531] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?iso-8859-2?Q?Vitkovsk=FD_Adam?=)
Mon May 5 03:27:46 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Vitkovsk=FD_Adam?= <adam.vitkovsky@swan.sk>
To: "mark.tinka@seacom.mu" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 07:27:37 +0000
In-Reply-To: <201405042337.06575.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> > 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
> There is work ongoing in the MPLS IETF WG on identifying the gaps that
> various MPLS applications have so they can be prepared for IPv6 MPLS
> control and data planes.
>=20
> Long overdue, if you ask me, but at least it's starting to get some atten=
tion.
>=20
> Mark.=20
You mean the SR right?=20
adam
