> On 21 Oct 2015, at 15:26, Rob Shakir <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 15 October 2015 at 15:13:38, Acee Lindem (acee) ([email protected]) wrote: >> >> Do we really see associating the same interface with different >> routing-instances for IPv4 and IPv6? I can seem to remember the use case >> and it does add complexity forever. >> > > At least two of the operators for whom I have worked utilise this > functionality (providing separate L3VPNs for IPv6 and IPv4) - so in my > experience, it is not possible to make this simplification.
One option would be to create two virtual interfaces - one for IPv4 VPN and another for IPv6 VPN, and define routing-instance and addresses separately for each. Lada > > r. -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
