Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

MPLS for IPv6

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

devangnp at gmail

Nov 4, 2008, 12:53 PM

Post #1 of 13 (1027 views)
Permalink

MPLS for IPv6

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

charles at thewybles

Nov 4, 2008, 1:19 PM

Post #2 of 13 (985 views)
Permalink

Re: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

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
>
>

charles at thewybles

Nov 4, 2008, 1:24 PM

Post #3 of 13 (996 views)
Permalink

Re: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

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_ps6922_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html

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.

devangnp at gmail

Nov 4, 2008, 1:39 PM

Post #4 of 13 (1000 views)
Permalink

Re: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

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 [at] thewybles> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>

dr at cluenet

Nov 4, 2008, 2:36 PM

Post #5 of 13 (989 views)
Permalink

Re: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

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 [at] cluenet -- dr [at] IRCne -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

nanog at daork

Nov 4, 2008, 3:45 PM

Post #6 of 13 (988 views)
Permalink

Re: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

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

david.freedman at uk

Nov 7, 2008, 1:22 AM

Post #7 of 13 (964 views)
Permalink

Re: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

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
>

mtinka at globaltransit

Nov 9, 2008, 5:46 PM

Post #8 of 13 (933 views)
Permalink

Re: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

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.

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.82 KB)

mkohno at juniper

Nov 9, 2008, 10:36 PM

Post #9 of 13 (951 views)
Permalink

RE: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

<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 [at] globaltransit]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:46 AM
> To: nanog [at] nanog
> 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.
>

nanog at studio442

Nov 9, 2008, 10:53 PM

Post #10 of 13 (938 views)
Permalink

Re: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

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

mkohno at juniper

Nov 9, 2008, 11:01 PM

Post #11 of 13 (948 views)
Permalink

RE: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

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

david.freedman at uk

Nov 10, 2008, 12:54 AM

Post #12 of 13 (931 views)
Permalink

RE: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

<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 [at] globaltransit]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:46 AM
> To: nanog [at] nanog
> 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.
>

mkohno at juniper

Nov 10, 2008, 1:43 AM

Post #13 of 13 (931 views)
Permalink

RE: MPLS for IPv6 [In reply to]

> I would be interested to know what your views on this are with your
vendor hat on :)

Business case conciliates resource contentions... :)

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads