Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

[Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura () ericsson com>]

> 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 <mark.tinka () seacom mu> 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.