> From: Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:59 PM > > > No, my line of reasoning is if you have MPLS LSPs signalled over v4 I see no > point having them signalled also over v6 in parallel. > > It's not about signaling IPv4 LSP's over IPv6. > LDPv4 creates IPv4 FEC's. > LDPv6 creates IPv6 FEC's. > > The idea is to create IPv6 FEC's so that IPv6 traffic can be label-switched in > the network natively, allowing you to remove BGPv6 in a native dual-stack > core. > Right I see what you are striving to achieve is migrate from BGP in a core to a BGP free core but not leveraging 6PE or 6VPE?
> > As you can see, just as with IPv4, IPv6 packets are now being MPLS-switched > in the core, allowing you to remove BGPv6 in the core and simplify > operations in that area of the network. > > So this is native MPLSv6. It's not 6PE or 6VPE. > So considering you already had v4 FECs wouldn't it be simpler to do 6PE/6VPE, what do you see as drawbacks of these compared to native MPLSv6 please? > > Apart from X months worth of functionality, performance, scalability and > interworking testing -network wide code upgrades to address the bugs > found during the testing process and then finally rollout across the core and > possibly even migration from LDPv4 to LDPv6, involving dozens of people > from Arch, Design, OPS, Project management, etc... with potential for things > to break while making changes in live network. > > Which you wouldn't have to do with SRv6, because you trust the vendors? > Well my point was that if v4 FECs would be enough to carry v6 traffic then I wouldn't need SRv6 nor LDPv6, hence I'm curious to hear from you about the benefits of v6 FEC over v4 FEC (or in other words MPLSv6 vs 6PE/6VPE). adam
