Re: LDPv6 Census Check

[Tim Durack <tdurack () gmail com>]

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 <saku () ytti fi> 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 <tdurack () gmail com> 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 <mark.tinka () seacom mu> 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:>