<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/Sep/15 14:26, Andrew Alston wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AMSPR03MB5341535D08DB2D9FB2F26EDEE570@AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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]--><br>
<div class="WordSection1"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span>
<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.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
To be honest, at this point I don't really care, since MPLS is,
well, multi-protocol. When we deliver services to customers over an
MPLS construct, we don't care about the payload. It could be IPv4,
it could be Ethernet, it could IPv6, it could be AppleTalk. <br>
<br>
That the MPLS construct is nailed up via IPv4 does not concern me so
much (a lot of networks do not run MPLS). What mostly concerns me
is, as a service provider, is tunneling IPv6 natively in IPv4.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AMSPR03MB5341535D08DB2D9FB2F26EDEE570@AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<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>
<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.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
So this is where I think striving for perfection may derail good. Is
it really necessary to get rid of IPv4? I don't think so, to be
honest.<br>
<br>
Even without the lack of MPLS parity, there are still a number of
basic features in IPv4 that aren't available in IPv6 - simple things
like RADIUS, TACACS+, NTP, e.t.c., are only starting to appear in
code now. And since a lot of networks run older code to maintain
stability, it will be a while before they can bring IPv6 into all
the features they currently support, let alone the ones they want to
support.<br>
<br>
Personally, I would not spend any time getting rid of IPv4. I will,
however, continue to expend energy getting IPv6 everywhere, because
the presence of IPv4 does not hinder this, really.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>