On 29/Aug/18 20:41, adamv0...@netconsultings.com 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
Hi Craig,
Recently I asked in this list exactly the same question, how legit is
to not use "family inet6 labeled-unicast explicit-null" but just change
next-hop to IPv4 address for IPv6 BGP session. After some discussion I
was pointed out to RFC4798 that states
The 6PE routers MUST exchange
Hi Rob,
Some interesting points you raised indeed,
> Of Rob Foehl
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 6:14 AM
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity is there a business problem/requirement/limitation
> you're trying to solve by not changing the
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 10:28 AM, heasley wrote:
>
> Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 01:17:48AM -0400, Jared Mauch:
>> Yes, I’m always reminding folks that router-id may be well known to be the
>> same integer representation of your IP address in the protocol encoding, but
>> often it’s not a
Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 01:17:48AM -0400, Jared Mauch:
> Yes, I’m always reminding folks that router-id may be well known to be the
> same integer representation of your IP address in the protocol encoding, but
> often it’s not a requirement.
its not; the reverse actually. it is just a 32 bit
For 6PE you have to:
- delete the iBGP ipv6 groups
- add family ipv6 labeled-unicast explicit-null to the IPv4 iBGP groups
- add ipv6-tunneling to protocol mpls.
- make sure your IGP is not advertising IPv6 addresses
This is the way it's configured, with either RSVP-TE or LDP.
> Le 29 août 2018
through all my convoluted babble
From: juniper-nsp on behalf of Jared
Mauch
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 5:17 AM
To: Rob Foehl
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] LSP's with IPV6 on Juniper
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 1:14 AM, Rob Foehl wr
On 28/Aug/18 17:25, craig washington wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the feedback.
>
> We are running RSVP so LDPv6 won't currently be an option.
>
> I'll keep digging around, again, thank you everyone for the feedback.
>
You can run multiple label distribution protocols.
Mark.
On 28/Aug/18 17:58, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>>
> I'm not aware of any v6 extensions for RSVP.
TTBOMK, no.
Mark.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 08:15, Rob Foehl wrote:
> The world is covered with well-trodden paths that have fallen into disuse
> with the arrival of newer, better, more convenient infrastructure.
That newer and better is Segment Routing, it does IPv6.
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 1:14 AM, Rob Foehl wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiosity is there a business problem/requirement/limitation
>> you're trying to solve by not changing the next hop to v6 mapped v4 address
>> and using native v6
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity is there a business problem/requirement/limitation you're
trying to solve by not changing the next hop to v6 mapped v4 address and using
native v6 NHs instead please?
I'd asked a similar question as the OP two
> Of craig washington
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 5:40 PM
>
> Hello all.
>
> Wondering if anyone is using MPLS with IPV6?
>
> I have read on 6PE and the vpn counterpart but these all seem to take into
> account that the CORE isn't running IPV6?
>
> My question is how can we get the ACTUAL
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] LSP's with IPV6 on Juniper
In global we have 6PE.
In VRF we have 6VPE.
Just works so far.
An yes, the MPLS control-plane uses only IPv4: (the intercos between routers
are in IPv4, LDP uses IPv4, IGP uses IPv4, and IPv6 is really announced over
On 28/Aug/18 02:05, Minto Mascarenhas wrote:
>
> shortcut is another option for rsvp lsps.
> https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/shortcuts-edit-protocols-isis.html
>
I believe this would still rely on an IPv4 underlay.
The OP is looking
shortcut is another option for rsvp lsps.
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/shortcuts-edit-protocols-isis.html
-minto
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 2:20 PM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 27/Aug/18 18:39, craig washington wrote:
>
> > Hello all.
>
On 27/Aug/18 18:39, craig washington wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> Wondering if anyone is using MPLS with IPV6?
>
> I have read on 6PE and the vpn counterpart but these all seem to take into
> account that the CORE isn't running IPV6?
>
> My question is how can we get the ACTUAL IPV6 loopback
Hi,
Am 27.08.2018 um 18:57 schrieb Olivier Benghozi:
An yes, the MPLS control-plane uses only IPv4: (the intercos between routers
are in IPv4, LDP uses IPv4, IGP uses IPv4, and IPv6 is really announced over
specific AFI/SAFI (labeled unicast IPv6 for 6PE, VPNv6 for 6VPE) in IPv4
MP-iBGP
In global we have 6PE.
In VRF we have 6VPE.
Just works so far.
An yes, the MPLS control-plane uses only IPv4: (the intercos between routers
are in IPv4, LDP uses IPv4, IGP uses IPv4, and IPv6 is really announced over
specific AFI/SAFI (labeled unicast IPv6 for 6PE, VPNv6 for 6VPE) in IPv4
Hello all.
Wondering if anyone is using MPLS with IPV6?
I have read on 6PE and the vpn counterpart but these all seem to take into
account that the CORE isn't running IPV6?
My question is how can we get the ACTUAL IPV6 loopback addresses into inet6.3
table? Would I need to do a rib import for
20 matches
Mail list logo
