MPLS requires an IPv4 core. You can't run an IPv6-only infrastructure because neither CSCO or JNPR have implemented LDP to distribute labels for IPV6 prefixes.
-mel via cell On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:15 AM, andrew <and...@ethernaut.io<mailto:and...@ethernaut.io>> wrote: Pardon my ignorance - what do you see missing in MPLS in regards to support for IP6? -------- Original message -------- From: Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org<mailto:m...@beckman.org>> Date: 07/06/2015 9:44 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org<mailto:l...@asgard.org>> Cc: Josh Moore <jmo...@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmo...@atcnetworks.net>>, nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion And let's all complain to the MPLS working group to get IPv6 support finished up! -mel beckman > On Jul 6, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Lee Howard > <l...@asgard.org<mailto:l...@asgard.org>> wrote: > > Some thoughts. . . > > ^3Native dual-stack^2 is ^3native IPv4 and native IPv6.^2 > > ^3Dual-stack^2 might be native, or might by ^3native IPv6 plus IPv4 address > sharing.^2 > > Your IPv4 address sharing options are CGN, DS-Lite, and MAP. There are > operational deployments of all three, in the order given. You need them > close enough to your customers that traffic will return over the same > path. You can^1t share state among a cluster of boxes, but that^1s not the > end of the world; a device failure sometimes causes loss of state. MAP is > the hot new thing all the cool kids are doing. > > Look to your router and load balancer vendors for devices that do these. > CGN is the only one that doesn^1t require updates to the home gateway. The > more IPv6 your customers use, the smaller your CGN/AFTR/MAP can be. > > Think about how you^1ll position it to customers. It^1s difficult to change > a customer^1s service mid-contract. At some point, a customer is no longer > profitable: if NAT costs and service calls add up, you may be better off > buying addresses or losing the customer. You may need to buy some IPv4 > addresses to give you time; contact a broker. > > You may be surprised how hard it is to root IPv4 out of the system. Don^1t > buy anything you can^1t manage over IPv6, including servers and > applications. Sorry, vendor, I can^1t buy your cluster, I don^1t have the > IPv4 address space to provision it. > > Lee > > On 7/4/15, 8:09 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Josh Moore" > <nanog-boun...@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of > jmo...@atcnetworks.net<mailto:jmo...@atcnetworks.net>> wrote: > >> Traditional dual stack deployments implement both IPv4 and IPv6 to the >> CPE. >> Consider the following: >> >> An ISP is at 90% IPv4 utilization and would like to deploy dual stack >> with the purpose of allowing their subscriber base to continue to grow >> regardless of the depletion of the IPv4 space. Current dual stack best >> practices seem to recommend deploying BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 to every CPE. If >> this is the case, and BOTH are still required, then how does IPv6 help >> with the v4 address depletion crisis? Many sites and services would still >> need legacy IPv4 compatibility. Sure, CGN technology may be a solution >> but what about applications that need direct IPv4 connectivity without >> NAT? It seems that there should be a mechanism to enable on-demand and >> efficient IPv4 address consumption ONLY when needed. My question is this: >> What, if any, solutions like this exist? If no solution exists then what >> is the next best thing? What would the overall IPv6 migration strategy >> and goal be? >> >> Sorry for the length of this email but these are legitimate concerns and >> while I understand the need for IPv6 and the importance of getting there; >> I don't understand exactly HOW that can be done considering the immediate >> issue: IPv4 depletion. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Joshua Moore >> Network Engineer >> ATC Broadband >> 912.632.3161 > >
