>From market prospective v6 SR is definitely lower priority. Comcast and few >more are looking into native rather than v6 with MPLS encap. Wrt v4 - 2 weeks ago at EANTC in Berlin we have tested 3 implementations of ISIS SR v4 MPLS with L3VPN and 6VPE over SR tunnels. Worked very well, very few issues. So there's production quality code and interoperability - given the timeframe we have done a really good job in IETF :)
Regards, Jeff > On Feb 20, 2015, at 2:09 PM, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 20/Feb/15 13:39, Saku Ytti wrote: >> >> Is there 4PE implementation to drive IPv4 edges, shouldn't be hard to accept >> IPv6 next-hop in BGP LU, but probably does not work out-of-the-box? >> Isn't Segment Routing implementation day1 IPV4+IPV6 in XR? > > The last time I checked, MPLS support in SR for IPv6 is not a high > priority, compared to TE for IPv4 MPLS. > > My thoughts that SR would automatically mean native label signaling in > IS-IS and OSPFv3 were otherwise ambitious. > > Mark.
