> From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mark Tinka > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 8:13 AM > > There are probably as many networks running SR-MPLS as there are running > LDPv6, likely fewer if your SR deployment doesn't yet support OSPFv3 or SR- > ISISv6. I concede that for some networks looking to go SR-MPLS, label > distribution state reduction is probably higher up on the agenda than > MPLSv6 forwarding. For me, I'd like the option to have both, and decide > whether my network is in a position to handle the additional state required > for LDPv6, if I feel that I'd prefer to deal with a protocol that has had more > exposure to the sun. > You do have the LDP vs SR choice (in v4 anyways) yes there's not a good 1:1 feature parity with v6, but the important point is the current state is not the end state, this is a pretty dynamic industry that I'm sure is converging/evolving towards a v4:v6 parity, however the pace may be, which is understandable considering the scope of ground to be covered. Yes you're right in acknowledging that we're not living in a perfect world and that choices are limited, but it's been like that since ever yet we managed to thrive by analysing our options and striving for optimal strategies year by year.
adam
