Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 15 April 2010 06:01 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9F93A6765 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.204
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.555, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8NwBaoBF84b5 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F0D3A67B2 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3FBE29C; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:01:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F14A9A; Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:01:29 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:01:29 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Rob Shakir <rjs@eng.gxn.net>
In-Reply-To: <1E2FA684-E5E0-45FA-9885-0BA7C288AC08@eng.gxn.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004150758320.6768@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <h2g77ead0ec1004061223k7cc69585ncf8761efb0df2d33@mail.gmail.com> <4395962A7C18D84191B205AD7089698305CA00CA@S4DE9JSAAIB.ost.t-com.de> <r2h77ead0ec1004120755za2c9aadcw9184a1d56cd10c5b@mail.gmail.com> <q2s77ead0ec1004120940r875bc282y7edd293bd846c57@mail.gmail.com> <1E2FA684-E5E0-45FA-9885-0BA7C288AC08@eng.gxn.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] LDP IPv6
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:01:44 -0000

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Rob Shakir wrote:

> I'd just like to speak up in support of this draft also. As an operator 
> that is progressing an IPv6 rollout, we are finding that in a number of 
> places, the only need to utilise 6PE is in order to address the lack of 
> support for IPv6 in LDP.

+1 from me as well, I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been more 
work in establishing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6 in the control 
plane. I'd imagine that by now it would be possible to implement 
standards-based IPv6 only control plane with equal functionality as is 
today possible with IPv4.

> Whilst I think it's unlikely that many operators are currently putting 
> this down as a mandatory requirement, it's definitely something that I 
> believe is required.

Considering IPv4 runout I definitely see greenfield rollout in 1-2 years 
wanting to do this IPv6 only, and considering code usually takes time to 
be finished the standards should definitely be done by now.

What else is missing?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se