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 <tdur...@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.ti...@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
