Re: LDPv6 Census Check
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020, at 20:51, Mark Tinka wrote: > Well, according to them, SRv6 is winning customers over, and nobody > wants LDPv6. Then again, they have LDPv6 in IOS XR; figures. Well, given their (Cisco's) braindead policy regarding non-implementation of LDPv6 on XE, no wonder people are looking for alternatives, and SRv6 is one of them. And don't forget SRv6 is also heavily associated (marketing-wise) with 5G Back to our friends and their policy: It happens that in certain regions of the world, if you want to be an ISP other than the "establishment" (== incumbent + "first alternatives" that started 20-25 years ago), you MUST have LNS (if you want to stay in business). If like many, you are kind of stuck with Cisco because it's Cisco, the only decent solution to have LNS is ASR1K (running XE). Also add ASR920 which has a number of uses. Also, in order to stay in business, you may want to offer L3VPN services, which brings you to doing MPLS. You say MPLS, you say LDP, and there you go, your backbone remains v4-based for the next eternity. There also seems to be a lack of global vision. Tyry to ask your favourite vendor what do you need in order to be able to offer IPv4-L3VPN, IPv6-L3VPN and L2VPN (mainly point-to-point - NO MAC learning) over a backbone that does NOT use any single IPv4 address (backbone-side). Because you can do it on a backbone that does not use any single IPv*6* address, but you may want to go forwards, not backwards. Add a LNS in the mix (the v4 addresses for the LNS go in VRFs - that's not backbone). Add a money, rack space and power needed constraints in the mix. This exercise looks challenging with other vendors too, but with Cisco it's just impossible. Of course, Cisco says there is no demand for one simple reason : the people talking with Cisco account managers (or whatever they are called) are only rarely those that care about technical stuff. They may want some features on the CPEs (like "ui uant SDWAN"), but for anything else (including backbone equipment) they only want lower prices. You end up with everybody having to deal with a specific platform in real life to dream about a specific feature, yet the vendor to consider that "nobody wants it".
Re: LDPv6 Census Check
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 22:36, Phil Bedard wrote: > In its simplest form without TE paths, there isn't much to SRv6. You use a > v6 address as an endpoint and a portion of the address to specify a specific > VPN service. You completely eliminate the label distribution protocol. Then do IPv6-in-IPv6, and attach the inner IPv6 header to VRF, pseudowire, what-have-you. It is clear market needs tunnelling, and we should all understand that colour of tunneling doesn't matter, what matters is how many bytes of overhead does the tunnel add (the more bytes, the more bps leverage attacker gets) and what is the cost of looking up the headers. Evaluating 40B IPv6 and 4B MPLS tunneling headers based on objective desirable qualities of tunneling, MPLS is blatantly better. But if someone does not like MPLS, fair-game, they should have ability to do IPV6 in IPv6 in IPv6 in IPv6, go crazy. I'm not saying we can't improve over MPLS header, we can. But IPv6 is just objectively inferior by key metrics of 'goodness' of tunneling. -- ++ytti
Re: LDPv6 Census Check
On 10/Jun/20 21:36, Phil Bedard wrote: > In its simplest form without TE paths, there isn't much to SRv6. You use a > v6 address as an endpoint and a portion of the address to specify a specific > VPN service. You completely eliminate the label distribution protocol. A BGPv6-free core is a decent use-case for us. Much simplicity has been enjoyed by removing that in the IPv4 world. Mark.
Re: LDPv6 Census Check
On 10/Jun/20 20:45, Saku Ytti wrote: > I'm pretty sure that one or more of Mark, Gert or Tim are thinking > SR/MPLS IPv6 when they say SRv6? Oh, not at all, Saku. > No one in their right minds thinks SRv6 is a good idea, terrible snake > oil and waste of NRE. SR/MPLS IPv6 of course is terrific. > > LDPv6 and SRv6 seem like an odd couple, LDPv6 SR/MPLS IPv6 seem far > more reasonable couple to choose from. I have my favorite. I've been tracking SR since it began making "waves" in Paris at a previous MPLS/SDN/IPv6 Congress meeting a a 2013, or thereabouts. Plenty of promise about being a decent alternative to LDPv6 (which had been on my mind since 2008). In the end, as you rightly point out, it's been much ado about nothing. To this day, I am yet to hear from a single operator about all the chanting I hear from vendors - and not just SRv6, but SR in general. 7 years and counting. Mark.
Re: LDPv6 Census Check
In its simplest form without TE paths, there isn't much to SRv6. You use a v6 address as an endpoint and a portion of the address to specify a specific VPN service. You completely eliminate the label distribution protocol. Thanks, Phil On 6/10/20, 2:49 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Saku Ytti" wrote: I'm pretty sure that one or more of Mark, Gert or Tim are thinking SR/MPLS IPv6 when they say SRv6? No one in their right minds thinks SRv6 is a good idea, terrible snake oil and waste of NRE. SR/MPLS IPv6 of course is terrific. LDPv6 and SRv6 seem like an odd couple, LDPv6 SR/MPLS IPv6 seem far more reasonable couple to choose from. I have my favorite. On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 21:32, Tim Durack wrote: > > I would take either LDPv6 or SRv6 - but also need L3VPN (and now EVPN) re-wired to use IPv6 NH. > > I have requested LDPv6 and SRv6 many times from Cisco to migrate the routing control plane from IPv4 to IPv6 > > I have lots of IPv6 address space. I don't have a lot of IPv4 address space. RFC1918 is not as big as it seems. Apparently this is hard to grasp... > > (This is primarily IOS-XE - can't afford the IOS-XR supercars) > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:20 PM Mark Tinka wrote: >> >> Hi all. >> >> Just want to sample the room and find out if anyone here - especially those running an LDP-based BGPv4-free core (or something close to it) - would be interested in LDPv6, in order to achieve the same for BGPv6? >> >> A discussion I've been having with Cisco on the matter is that they do not "see any demand" for LDPv6, and thus, won't develop it (on IOS XE). Meanwhile, it is actively developed, supported and maintained on IOS XR since 5.3.0, with new features being added to it as currently as 7.1.1. >> >> Needless to say, a bunch of other vendors have been supporting it for a while now - Juniper, Nokia/ALU, Huawei, even HP. >> >> IOS XR supporting LDPv6 notwithstanding, Cisco's argument is that "the world" is heavily focused on deploying SRv6 (Segment Routing). While I know of one or two questionable deployments, I'm not entirely sure much of the world is clamouring to deploy SR, based on all the polls we've done at various NOG meetings and within the general list-based operator community >> >> So I just wanted to hear from this operator community on whether you would be interested in having LDPv6 support to go alongside your LDPv4 deployments, especially if you run native dual-stack backbones. Or if your focus is totally on SRv6. Or if you don't care either way :-). Thanks. >> >> Mark. > > > > -- > Tim:> -- ++ytti
Re: LDPv6 Census Check
Ah yes, I would say LDPv6 and/or SR/MPLS IPv6. SRv6 reads like a science project. Either way, I would like to achieve a full IPv6 control plane. On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:46 PM Saku Ytti wrote: > I'm pretty sure that one or more of Mark, Gert or Tim are thinking > SR/MPLS IPv6 when they say SRv6? > > No one in their right minds thinks SRv6 is a good idea, terrible snake > oil and waste of NRE. SR/MPLS IPv6 of course is terrific. > > LDPv6 and SRv6 seem like an odd couple, LDPv6 SR/MPLS IPv6 seem far > more reasonable couple to choose from. I have my favorite. > > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 21:32, Tim Durack wrote: > > > > I would take either LDPv6 or SRv6 - but also need L3VPN (and now EVPN) > re-wired to use IPv6 NH. > > > > I have requested LDPv6 and SRv6 many times from Cisco to migrate the > routing control plane from IPv4 to IPv6 > > > > I have lots of IPv6 address space. I don't have a lot of IPv4 address > space. RFC1918 is not as big as it seems. Apparently this is hard to > grasp... > > > > (This is primarily IOS-XE - can't afford the IOS-XR supercars) > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:20 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > >> > >> Hi all. > >> > >> Just want to sample the room and find out if anyone here - especially > those running an LDP-based BGPv4-free core (or something close to it) - > would be interested in LDPv6, in order to achieve the same for BGPv6? > >> > >> A discussion I've been having with Cisco on the matter is that they do > not "see any demand" for LDPv6, and thus, won't develop it (on IOS XE). > Meanwhile, it is actively developed, supported and maintained on IOS XR > since 5.3.0, with new features being added to it as currently as 7.1.1. > >> > >> Needless to say, a bunch of other vendors have been supporting it for a > while now - Juniper, Nokia/ALU, Huawei, even HP. > >> > >> IOS XR supporting LDPv6 notwithstanding, Cisco's argument is that "the > world" is heavily focused on deploying SRv6 (Segment Routing). While I know > of one or two questionable deployments, I'm not entirely sure much of the > world is clamouring to deploy SR, based on all the polls we've done at > various NOG meetings and within the general list-based operator community > >> > >> So I just wanted to hear from this operator community on whether you > would be interested in having LDPv6 support to go alongside your LDPv4 > deployments, especially if you run native dual-stack backbones. Or if your > focus is totally on SRv6. Or if you don't care either way :-). Thanks. > >> > >> Mark. > > > > > > > > -- > > Tim:> > > > > -- > ++ytti > -- Tim:>
Re: LDPv6 Census Check
On 10/Jun/20 20:29, Tim Durack wrote: > I would take either LDPv6 or SRv6 - but also need L3VPN (and now EVPN) > re-wired to use IPv6 NH. At the moment, LDPv6 doesn't have what I call "service" support, i.e., l3vpn's, l2vpn's, MPLSv6-TE, mLDP, CsC, e.t.c. To be honest, I don't mind those so much on my end because you can still run a BGP-free core and still deliver those services. Granted, if your goal is a single-stack MPLS-based IPv6 network, then yes, it would be good for LDPv6 to support the "services". But if it's just vanilla MPLSv6 switching you're after, then LDPv6 will do just fine. > > I have requested LDPv6 and SRv6 many times from Cisco to migrate the > routing control plane from IPv4 to IPv6 Well, according to them, SRv6 is winning customers over, and nobody wants LDPv6. Then again, they have LDPv6 in IOS XR; figures. > > I have lots of IPv6 address space. I don't have a lot of IPv4 > address space. RFC1918 is not as big as it seems. Apparently this is > hard to grasp... > > (This is primarily IOS-XE - can't afford the IOS-XR supercars) LDPv6 must be a business case :-). Well, wonder how they sell so many CGN's, then :-). Mark.
Re: LDPv6 Census Check
I'm pretty sure that one or more of Mark, Gert or Tim are thinking SR/MPLS IPv6 when they say SRv6? No one in their right minds thinks SRv6 is a good idea, terrible snake oil and waste of NRE. SR/MPLS IPv6 of course is terrific. LDPv6 and SRv6 seem like an odd couple, LDPv6 SR/MPLS IPv6 seem far more reasonable couple to choose from. I have my favorite. On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 21:32, Tim Durack wrote: > > I would take either LDPv6 or SRv6 - but also need L3VPN (and now EVPN) > re-wired to use IPv6 NH. > > I have requested LDPv6 and SRv6 many times from Cisco to migrate the routing > control plane from IPv4 to IPv6 > > I have lots of IPv6 address space. I don't have a lot of IPv4 address space. > RFC1918 is not as big as it seems. Apparently this is hard to grasp... > > (This is primarily IOS-XE - can't afford the IOS-XR supercars) > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:20 PM Mark Tinka wrote: >> >> Hi all. >> >> Just want to sample the room and find out if anyone here - especially those >> running an LDP-based BGPv4-free core (or something close to it) - would be >> interested in LDPv6, in order to achieve the same for BGPv6? >> >> A discussion I've been having with Cisco on the matter is that they do not >> "see any demand" for LDPv6, and thus, won't develop it (on IOS XE). >> Meanwhile, it is actively developed, supported and maintained on IOS XR >> since 5.3.0, with new features being added to it as currently as 7.1.1. >> >> Needless to say, a bunch of other vendors have been supporting it for a >> while now - Juniper, Nokia/ALU, Huawei, even HP. >> >> IOS XR supporting LDPv6 notwithstanding, Cisco's argument is that "the >> world" is heavily focused on deploying SRv6 (Segment Routing). While I know >> of one or two questionable deployments, I'm not entirely sure much of the >> world is clamouring to deploy SR, based on all the polls we've done at >> various NOG meetings and within the general list-based operator community >> >> So I just wanted to hear from this operator community on whether you would >> be interested in having LDPv6 support to go alongside your LDPv4 >> deployments, especially if you run native dual-stack backbones. Or if your >> focus is totally on SRv6. Or if you don't care either way :-). Thanks. >> >> Mark. > > > > -- > Tim:> -- ++ytti
Re: LDPv6 Census Check
I would take either LDPv6 or SRv6 - but also need L3VPN (and now EVPN) re-wired to use IPv6 NH. I have requested LDPv6 and SRv6 many times from Cisco to migrate the routing control plane from IPv4 to IPv6 I have lots of IPv6 address space. I don't have a lot of IPv4 address space. RFC1918 is not as big as it seems. Apparently this is hard to grasp... (This is primarily IOS-XE - can't afford the IOS-XR supercars) On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:20 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > Hi all. > > Just want to sample the room and find out if anyone here - especially > those running an LDP-based BGPv4-free core (or something close to it) - > would be interested in LDPv6, in order to achieve the same for BGPv6? > > A discussion I've been having with Cisco on the matter is that they do not > "see any demand" for LDPv6, and thus, won't develop it (on IOS XE). > Meanwhile, it is actively developed, supported and maintained on IOS XR > since 5.3.0, with new features being added to it as currently as 7.1.1. > > Needless to say, a bunch of other vendors have been supporting it for a > while now - Juniper, Nokia/ALU, Huawei, even HP. > > IOS XR supporting LDPv6 notwithstanding, Cisco's argument is that "the > world" is heavily focused on deploying SRv6 (Segment Routing). While I know > of one or two questionable deployments, I'm not entirely sure much of the > world is clamouring to deploy SR, based on all the polls we've done at > various NOG meetings and within the general list-based operator community > > So I just wanted to hear from this operator community on whether you would > be interested in having LDPv6 support to go alongside your LDPv4 > deployments, especially if you run native dual-stack backbones. Or if your > focus is totally on SRv6. Or if you don't care either way :-). Thanks. > > Mark. > -- Tim:>
