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
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
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
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
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"
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
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
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
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
9 matches
Mail list logo
