Hi, Does any vendor support the MPLS for native IPv6 network? I was working on one testing scenario where I have Cisco 7200 routers and whole network is running only IPv6 and I wanted to run MPLS on the top of that but I found MPLS is not supported on IPv6 networks? is that true? regards Devang Patel
devang patel wrote:
Hi,
Does any vendor support the MPLS for native IPv6 network?
I think the bigger question is what vendors support native IPv6 networks and at what stage of maturity. :)
I was working on one testing scenario where I have Cisco 7200 routers and whole network is running only IPv6 and I wanted to run MPLS on the top of that but I found MPLS is not supported on IPv6 networks? is that true?
What sort of environment was this in? A lab environment? Or over a vendors network? http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+mpls&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a might be of interest.
regards Devang Patel
Hi, Its lab environment, just created one topology having few routers and testing it for MPLS VPN for IPv6!!! the thing is enabling MPLS on interface having IPv6 address will not bring up LDP neighbor relationship, and due to that it will not assign the MPLS label to the prefixes!!! so I just want to get information about the same!!! It was suprising me when I was going to the configuration and verification!!! regards Devang Patel On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Charles Wyble <charles@thewybles.com> wrote:
devang patel wrote:
Hi,
Does any vendor support the MPLS for native IPv6 network?
I think the bigger question is what vendors support native IPv6 networks and at what stage of maturity. :)
I was working on one testing scenario where I have Cisco 7200 routers and whole network is running only IPv6 and I wanted to run MPLS on the top of that but I found MPLS is not supported on IPv6 networks? is that true?
What sort of environment was this in? A lab environment? Or over a vendors network?
http://www.google.com/search?q=ipv6+mpls&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-amight be of interest.
regards Devang Patel
devang patel wrote:
Hi,
Does any vendor support the MPLS for native IPv6 network? I was working on one testing scenario where I have Cisco 7200 routers and whole network is running only IPv6 and I wanted to run MPLS on the top of that but I found MPLS is not supported on IPv6 networks? is that true?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6-over_mpls_p... would say it's possible. However (I'm not an expert at MPLS so forgive me if I'm wrong) isn't MPLS at a lower level and you run IP on top of it? That seems to be what initial research indicates. See the NANOG talk archives for lots of MPLS presentations.
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:53:46PM -0600, devang patel wrote:
Does any vendor support the MPLS for native IPv6 network?
Unfortunately noone of the major vendors have yet implemented MPLS control plane via IPv6 transport. From my understanding, the protocol specs are there, just no implementation. So for now, you still have to use IPv4 for the MPLS network control plane and must either forward IPv6 natively dual-stack alongside IPv4, or transport IPv6 via 6(V)PE. "no customer demand", as usual. It's just us weirdos trying to do such things. :) Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On 5/11/2008, at 11:36 AM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:53:46PM -0600, devang patel wrote:
Does any vendor support the MPLS for native IPv6 network?
Unfortunately noone of the major vendors have yet implemented MPLS control plane via IPv6 transport. From my understanding, the protocol specs are there, just no implementation.
So for now, you still have to use IPv4 for the MPLS network control plane and must either forward IPv6 natively dual-stack alongside IPv4, or transport IPv6 via 6(V)PE.
"no customer demand", as usual. It's just us weirdos trying to do such things. :)
Correct, LDP etc. must all be done at IPv4. That can do the MPLS label bits, and IPv6 can then be carried inside MPLS. If you use 10.0.0.0/8 for numbering your point to point links, you get 4-8M links, dependant on whether you do /30 or /31. I don't imagine that represents a problem for many people. -- Nathan Ward
Well, don't know about anybody else, but I've been asking vendors for LDP6 for a while now, every time we approach them for new projects and they always look embarrassed when they realise that they a. don't have it b. are not involved in the standards process (draft-manral-mpls-ldp-ipv6-02) So please, if you are spending your hard earned cash, please ask for an LDP6 implementation, "no demand" should not be the case. Dave. Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:53:46PM -0600, devang patel wrote:
Does any vendor support the MPLS for native IPv6 network?
Unfortunately noone of the major vendors have yet implemented MPLS control plane via IPv6 transport. From my understanding, the protocol specs are there, just no implementation.
So for now, you still have to use IPv4 for the MPLS network control plane and must either forward IPv6 natively dual-stack alongside IPv4, or transport IPv6 via 6(V)PE.
"no customer demand", as usual. It's just us weirdos trying to do such things. :)
Best regards, Daniel
<with my vendor hat off...> If we consider the phases in terms of IPv6 deployment...., Ph-0: IPv4 only Ph-1: IPv4/v6 dual stack + v4/v6 coexistence technologies Ph-2: IPv6 only I suppose MPLS v6 control plane would become necessary at Ph-2, or a later stage of Ph-1. In the meantime, MPLS can be viewed as one of the v4/v6 coexistence technologies. IPv6 traffic can be carried over v4 signaled MPLS LSP in various ways (i.e. 6PE/6VPN, static mapping onto TE-LSP, IGP cutthrough..). Miya
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mtinka@globaltransit.net] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:46 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Cc: David Freedman Subject: Re: MPLS for IPv6
On Friday 07 November 2008 17:22:33 David Freedman wrote:
So please, if you are spending your hard earned cash, please ask for an LDP6 implementation, "no demand" should not be the case.
I sent our SE's at C & J yet another reminder about this.
Mark.
On 10/11/08 17:36, Miya Kohno wrote:
<with my vendor hat off...>
If we consider the phases in terms of IPv6 deployment....,
Ph-0: IPv4 only Ph-1: IPv4/v6 dual stack + v4/v6 coexistence technologies Ph-2: IPv6 only
Hmm, not quite. I'd say: v4 only v4/v6 dual stack, with v4 being primary (for network management, routing, etc) v4/v6 dual stack, with v6 primary v6 only Julien
Hi Julien,
If we consider the phases in terms of IPv6 deployment....,
Ph-0: IPv4 only Ph-1: IPv4/v6 dual stack + v4/v6 coexistence technologies Ph-2: IPv6 only
Hmm, not quite. I'd say:
v4 only v4/v6 dual stack, with v4 being primary (for network management, routing, etc) v4/v6 dual stack, with v6 primary v6 only
"A later phase of Ph-1" in my previous email corresponds to your "v4/v6 dual stack with v6 primary". And, putting aside whether if it's evil, a certain coexistence technologies would be needed for the phase transition. Miya
<snip> I suppose MPLS v6 control plane would become necessary at Ph-2, or a later stage of Ph-1. </snip> This is a stupidly simple to implement feature, telling us "we're not ready yet" is not a sensible thing to do, any technology we can have sooner will ease the transition for many people should they choose to implement it. I would be interested to know what your views on this are with your vendor hat on :) Dave.
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mtinka@globaltransit.net] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:46 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Cc: David Freedman Subject: Re: MPLS for IPv6
On Friday 07 November 2008 17:22:33 David Freedman wrote:
So please, if you are spending your hard earned cash, please ask for an LDP6 implementation, "no demand" should not be the case.
I sent our SE's at C & J yet another reminder about this.
Mark.
participants (8)
-
Charles Wyble -
Daniel Roesen -
David Freedman -
devang patel -
Julien Goodwin -
Mark Tinka -
Miya Kohno -
Nathan Ward