Is LDPv6 dead?

This kinds of reminds me of NAT. Remember the big push for IPv6? For
now, 6PE/6VPE has slowed down the immediate need, but that won't last
forever. Here's a quick and dirty article on the subject, however it still
doesn't answer your initial questions. Seems there are no
timelines available from what I can see.

http://blogs.cisco.com/tag/6pe/

Thanks,
Steve Di Bias- CCIE #32840

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Tom Kacprzynski <tom.kac_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that it would not make sense for carriers to convert their MPLS
> backbones with IPv6 when there is a really nice and easy solutions with
> their current IPv4. But if we are really trying to be serious about ever
> moving the industry to IPv6 only world, we'll need a IPV6 labeling
> protocol. Granted that this might be a technology that's needed in 15 or 10
> years, but would be nice to have for brand new network (if those still
> exist).
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Steve Di Bias <sdibias_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My thoughts exactly, Yuri.
>>
>> With 6PE/6VPE service providers can leverage their existing IPv4/MPLS
>> backbones, without making any changes to it. Because of this I don't think
>> their is a big push today.
>>
>> That said I'm not really sure what the benefits would be today.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steve Di Bias- CCIE #32840
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Yuri Bank <yuribank_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've wondered about this too.I think it would be a good step to the IPv6
>>> migration process.
>>>
>>> My thoughts are that with an MPLS core, it doesn't really matter if
>>> you're
>>> using IPv4 based IGP & signalling protocols, it's not like ISPs are
>>> running
>>> out of /30s and Loopback addresses. With 6PE and 6VPE, there isn't much
>>> incentive. What would be the real benefits to the business?
>>>
>>> -Yuri
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Tom Kacprzynski <tom.kac_at_gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi,
>>> > I thought someone might have more insight. I was looking at IPv6 MPLS
>>> > implementations and looks like all of them require IPv4 MPLS core. The
>>> > reason for that is that currently there is no IPv6 signaling protocol.
>>> > Looks like *draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-07 *that proposed LDPv6 is
>>> expired.
>>> > Does anyone know what is the latest in that field. Will we be stuck
>>> with
>>> > dual-stack forever?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> >
>>> > Tom Kacprzynski
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Fri Feb 15 2013 - 14:23:21 ART