nanog mailing list archives
Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:10:47 +0200
On (2014-01-19 09:10 +0000), John van Oppen wrote:
We ended up with 6PE to make the v6 support on our cisco based network behave the same way as v4, IE use TE tunnels, etc. Given the v4 MPLS this was the only real way to make it the same.
Fully agreed. I have no problem being in 6PE until fork-lift in some future to IPv6 core and 4PE. Signalling AFI in core and AFI sold to customer have little codependency. People have too sentimental view on this, if you label your IPv4 it is silly not to run 6PE, you're just creating complexity and removing functionality. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency Mukom Akong T. (Jan 18)
- Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency Mark Tinka (Jan 18)
- Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency Mukom Akong T. (Jan 18)
- Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency sthaug (Jan 19)
- Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency Jimmy Hess (Jan 19)
- Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 19)
- Message not available
- RE: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency John van Oppen (Jan 18)
- Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency joel jaeggli (Jan 18)
- RE: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency John van Oppen (Jan 19)
- Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency Saku Ytti (Jan 19)
- Re: Experiences with IPv6 and Routing Efficiency Mark Tinka (Jan 19)