Christian MacNevin wrote: > Standard schmandard. What's needed is a business case. > > I've got a fiver. Who wants it? TDPv2 anyone? >
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manral-mpls-ldp-ipv6-03 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manral-mpls-rsvpte-ipv6-00 Dave. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 1:47 PM > To: Christian MacNevin > Cc: Tim Durack; Chris Nicholls; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 6PE: was: mpls over native ipv6? > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Christian MacNevin wrote: > >> Anyone from cisco care to comment on the LDPv6 road map? > > Last I checked (couple of months ago) there wasn't even a standard for it, > I expressed my opinion in the IETF WG IPv6 control plane for MPLS needs > feature parity with IPv4, and LDPv6 is definitely one of the things needed > first. > -- David Freedman Group Network Engineering Claranet Group _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
