> On Aug 29, 2018, at 1:14 AM, Rob Foehl <r...@loonybin.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2018, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > >> Just out of curiosity is there a business problem/requirement/limitation >> you're trying to solve by not changing the next hop to v6 mapped v4 address >> and using native v6 NHs instead please? > > I'd asked a similar question as the OP two weeks ago in the thread about > mixing v4 and v6 in the same BGP peer groups, after several responses > extolling the virtues of avoiding any conflation between the two. If that's > the case for routing, but forwarding v6 in an entirely v4-dependent manner on > a 100% dual stack network is tolerable, then this inconsistency is... > inconsistent. > > By all outward appearances, v6 is still a second class citizen when it comes > to TE, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask why this is the way it is in > 2018. There are plenty of valid reasons for wanting parity. > >> On contrary 6PE/6VPE is such a well-trodden path. > > The world is covered with well-trodden paths that have fallen into disuse > with the arrival of newer, better, more convenient infrastructure. >
Yes, I’m always reminding folks that router-id may be well known to be the same integer representation of your IP address in the protocol encoding, but often it’s not a requirement. I would like to see some of the gaps closed that prevent me from having an IPv6 loopback in my BGP OPEN message, but then again, I could just use the integer value of the serial number of my router instead. - Jared _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
