<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">HI Mark,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I think this is a matter of terminology or definition though. The moment you are running v6 over EoMPLS, or v6 over VPLS, at the moment
you *<b>ARE</b>* running v6 over v4, because the MPLS is built between v4 end points. Yes, technically you can argue its just a matter of the way the traffic is switched, I argue that it is still on top of v4.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I also would hardly call EoMPLS / VPLS specific use case scenarios, they are INCREDIBLY heavily used. I point out that even LINX is
running on a VPLS network, and TECHNICALLY the native v6 between members is therefore being carried with a v4 backend, because the VPLS is v4 end point based.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Agreed, this shouldn’t stop the rollout of v6, but if we want TRUE native v6 everywhere, we have to remove the reliance on v4 entirely,
and that is still there. This is ENTIRELY the fault of vendors, and it has to change.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.mu]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 04 September 2015 14:18<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>; Nabil Badri <shenzen.shen@gmail.com>; afnog@afnog.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [afnog] Four Misconceptions About IPv4 to IPv6 Migration<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On 4/Sep/15 13:04, Andrew Alston wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">V6 is coming, there is no doubt about it. If we don’t deploy it, we’re gonna be in trouble. NAT is not a sustainable solution, never
has been, never will be, and the world is running out of v4. But until there is what I refer to as protocol parity, the deployment will be hampered, and that protocol parity is still (sadly) very very far away. Right now, no matter how much you want to,
you still have to build your v6 in a provider environment ON TOP of your v4, and you have to be VERY careful with your hardware purchasing decisions if you wish to avoid a situation where you will be stuck in this scenario for the long haul.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">(Please don’t mistake what I am saying by the way, such things should not stop the deployment of V6 totally, and if you have to build
v6 on top of v4 right now, its in your interests to do so, and that is what my employer has done, I am merely stating that it would make the case so much stronger if the protocols actually had parity in the functionality)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I don't think it is necessary to lay IPv6 over IPv4, unless you're providing 6-in-4 services or some such.<br>
<br>
We run native IPv6 across the board, and they pretty much run ships in the night. IPv4 does what it does, IPv6 does what it does. They don't intersect in any way.<br>
<br>
Agree that the lack of MPLS parity between IPv4 and IPv6 makes it difficult to do away with IPv4 entirely, but this is a specific use-case which goes above and beyond the basics of rolling out IPv6, IMHO.<br>
<br>
Mark.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>