Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency

[mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)]

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 12:10:47 PM Saku Ytti wrote:

> Fully agreed. I have no problem being in 6PE until
> fork-lift in some future to IPv6 core and 4PE.

Assuming your addressing will continue to grow on IPv6, and 
remain reasonably static on IPv4, your forklift should allow 
you to remain native on both (on the basis that at that 
time, we do have native control planes both for MPLSv4 and 
MPLSv6, of course).

So "4|6PE" would not be necessary. Personally, I think it's 
unnecessary labor to remove IPv4 in the future, especially 
when it's not expanding. One is welcome to do this, of 
course, if they are really bored :-).

Removing native IPv4 in the future only to replace it with 
4PE seems quite complex, to me.

> 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.

Turning on native IPv6 in your core is not adding 
complexity, I think. Yes, agree that you may lose parity 
between MPLS-TEv4 and TEv6 as of today, but some would say 
that MPLS-TE adds quite a bit complexity today, especially 
if used on a long-term basis.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140119/daef3741/attachment.bin>