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" <mansaxel@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 (cgrundemann@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!!