> 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" <mansa...@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 (cgrundem...@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!!
