Re: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)]

["Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva () cisco com>]

> inside a VRF, but the MPLS standards wg seems content with status quo.


http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6

The WG is pretty close to wrap this up (back to the 3rd WGLC very soon). 

But frankly admitting, dual-stacking facilitated more issues than I expected early on. 

Cheers,
Rajiv

> On May 3, 2014, at 5:29 AM, "Måns Nilsson" <mansaxel () besserwisser org> wrote:
>
> Subject: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Date: Fri, May 
> 02, 2014 at 03:58:42PM -0600 Quoting Chris Grundemann (cgrundemann () gmail com):
>
> > Would you expound a bit on what you mean here? I don't quite follow but I
> > am very interested to understand the issue.
>
> The fact that you need v4 space to build a MPLS backbone is a very good
> reason to not waste a /10 on CGN crap. 
>
> Ideally, we would have a solution where an entire MPLS infrastructure
> could be built without v4 space, demoting v4 to a legacy application
> inside a VRF, but the MPLS standards wg seems content with status quo.
>
> -- 
> Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
> MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
> I wish I was a sex-starved manicurist found dead in the Bronx!!