On 29/Aug/18 20:41, [email protected] wrote:
> Personally I'd vote against IPv6 support for existing RSVP-TE, the protocol
> has been around for ages with no new major features added and therefore all
> the implementations are very stable,
> I'd vote for a separate protocol altogether that can be enabled alongside
> the RSVP-TE (SR for instance).
While we don't use RSVP in our network, I don't think adding IPv6
support for it would be a problem. Other protocols do it all the time;
take BFD, for example.
Rather than introduce a new protocol that someone has to learn, have
support for across the board, e.t.c., adding IPv6 to an existing
protocol is low overhead to me. As long as the operator has the on/off
switch for IPv6, there isn't much else he's learning. He already knows
that IPv6 is IPv4 with bigger numbers :-).
Mark.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
