Giuseppe Larosa Tue, 09/28/2010 - 09:50
User Badges:
  • Super Silver, 17500 points or more
  • Hall of Fame,

    Founding Member

Hello Dean,


if you start from a 6PE or 6VPE solution you could be able to indicate an IPv4 address as BGP next-hop for IPv6 prefixes


then it should be enough to have a static route with BGP IPv4 next-hop destination using the MPLS TE tunnel.


The service inner label is provided by BGP and the IGP label can be that of an MPLS TE tunnel.


Hope to help

Giuseppe

dean holroyd Wed, 09/29/2010 - 00:56
User Badges:

Thanks for the replies


Yes, we are aware 6PE/6VPE, and investigated it as a possible solution, but we didn't want to mix our native BGP sessions with 6PE.


I was really wondering about native support for IPv6 in MPLS-TE, but i guess that it doesn't exist as it doesn't in LDP.


Thanks

Giuseppe Larosa Wed, 09/29/2010 - 04:22
User Badges:
  • Super Silver, 17500 points or more
  • Hall of Fame,

    Founding Member

Hello Dean,

another way to do this is to use EoMPLS to carry IPv6 packets between two sites but as you noted an IPv6 FEC cannot be mapped directly to an LSP up to now.


Hope to help

Giuseppe

dean holroyd Wed, 09/29/2010 - 04:28
User Badges:

Thanks Giuseppe

Yes, we have investigated that option too. We are also looking at BGP sessions over a 6to4 tunnel, which also works as an alternative way of feeding into a TE tunnel

would be handy if Cisco pulled their finger out and developed MPLS for v6 a bit more ;-)

Again, thanks for your help

Actions

This Discussion