[181902] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jul 9 03:19:01 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <559D7049.2010102@seacom.mu>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 12:32:15 -0700
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I think the =93THING=94 that people are starting to worry about is how =
to deploy a network when you can=92t get IPv4 space for it at a =
reasonable price.
Owen
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 11:47 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 8/Jul/15 17:59, Mel Beckman wrote:
>> Greg,
>>=20
>> After investigating what a previous poster said about Cisco and =
Juniper, I'm getting the feeling that not all major impediments to =
running MPLS over IPv6-only networks have been addressed.=20
>>=20
>> Your comment mentions LDP IPv6 support. Do you now handle all the =
major gaps identified the the IETF MPLS IPv6 Gap Analysis (RFC7439) from =
this last January?
>>=20
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439#section-3
>>=20
>> It seems like their are still gaps in the MPLS spec itself before =
IPv6 has parity with IPv4 in MPLS.=20
>=20
> The LDPv6 support is just the control plane portion to get labels
> assigned to IPv6 addresses. This should get you basic forwarding of
> encapsulation and forwarding of IPv6 traffic in MPLS. The immediate
> use-case would be removal of IPv6 BGP routing in the core, if that is
> your thing.
>=20
> Otherwise, yes, there are still a bunch of MPLS gaps that need to be
> fixed for those additional services to run natively over an IPv6-only
> network. Baby steps...
>=20
> Mark.
