[171552] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rajiv Asati (rajiva))
Tue May 6 05:23:27 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Nilsson?= <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:23:17 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20140503092627.GR13966@besserwisser.org>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> inside a VRF, but the MPLS standards wg seems content with status quo.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6
The WG is pretty close to wrap this up (back to the 3rd WGLC very soon).=20
But frankly admitting, dual-stacking facilitated more issues than I expecte=
d early on.=20
Cheers,
Rajiv
> On May 3, 2014, at 5:29 AM, "M=E5ns Nilsson" <mansaxel@besserwisser.org> =
wrote:
>=20
> Subject: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practice=
s IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Date: Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:58:42PM -0600 Q=
uoting Chris Grundemann (cgrundemann@gmail.com):
>=20
>> Would you expound a bit on what you mean here? I don't quite follow but =
I
>> am very interested to understand the issue.
>=20
> 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
>=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
> --=20
> M=E5ns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
> MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
> I wish I was a sex-starved manicurist found dead in the Bronx!!
