t; > -Josh
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 2/21/15, 6:00 AM, "nanog-requ...@nanog.org" requ...@nanog.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ------------------
> >>>
> >>> Messa
--
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:00:07 -0500
>>> From: Tim Durack
>>> To: Saku Ytti
>>> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" , Juniper-Nsp
>>> , "cisco-...@puck.nether.net"
>>&g
0 AM, "nanog-requ...@nanog.org"
>wrote:
>
>>--
>>
>>Message: 1
>>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:00:07 -0500
>>From: Tim Durack
>>To: Saku Ytti
>>Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" , Juniper-Nsp
>> , "cisco-...@
For L2VPN if you could make it work - go with EVPN day 1, it solves most of the
issues present in both LDP and BGP VPLS implementations.
Be aware of differences in PBB vs plain EVPN and platform support.
EVPN, specifically multhoming/split horizon/some other stuff as well as
presence of L3 (type
>From market prospective v6 SR is definitely lower priority. Comcast and few
>more are looking into native rather than v6 with MPLS encap.
Wrt v4 - 2 weeks ago at EANTC in Berlin we have tested 3 implementations of
ISIS SR v4 MPLS with L3VPN and 6VPE over SR tunnels. Worked very well, very few
i
On 20/Feb/15 13:39, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> Is there 4PE implementation to drive IPv4 edges, shouldn't be hard to accept
> IPv6 next-hop in BGP LU, but probably does not work out-of-the-box?
> Isn't Segment Routing implementation day1 IPV4+IPV6 in XR?
The last time I checked, MPLS support in SR for
On (2015-02-20 09:00 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
Hey Tim,
> I also need some flavor of L2VPN (eVPN) and L3VPN (VPNv4/VPNv6) working
> over IPv6.
L3VPN uses BGP exclusively for VPN label signalling, no need for LDP.
For L2VPN only Martini uses LDP, but if you have choice, why wouldn't you
choose K
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
>
> > What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite
> like
> > to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget...
> >
> > (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP
On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote:
> What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like
> to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget...
>
> (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is the last
> piece for me.)
Is there 4PE implementation to dr
On 20/Feb/15 02:36, George, Wes wrote:
>
> The document has come out the other side of the IETF sausage grinder now:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7439
>
> Unfortunately, it's just a list of the gaps.
> It is worth leaning on your vendors of choice to ensure that they have
> people focused on
On 2/19/15, 2:27 PM, "Mark Tinka" wrote:
>
>Getting IPv6 support in LDP is one thing.
>
>This is one document that we need to keep track to know what MPLS
>applications currently running off of LDPv4 still need to be ported to
>run over LDPv6:
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-mp
On 19/Feb/15 19:03, Phil Bedard wrote:
> ASR9K IOS-XR 5.3.0 Release Notes:
>
> IPv6 Support in MPLS LDP: Starting from release 5.3.0, support for native
> MPLS LDP over IPv6 is enabled to continue providing existing services
> seamlessly while enabling new ones. The attributes and capabilities
ASR9K IOS-XR 5.3.0 Release Notes:
IPv6 Support in MPLS LDP: Starting from release 5.3.0, support for native
MPLS LDP over IPv6 is enabled to continue providing existing services
seamlessly while enabling new ones. The attributes and capabilities of the
existing MPLS LDP have been extended to b
Subject: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 Date: Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:06:40AM
-0500 Quoting Tim Durack (tdur...@gmail.com):
> I notice draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 was posted February 11, 2015.
>
> What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite like
> to play with this new fang
14 matches
Mail list logo
