> On Aug 29, 2018, at 1:14 AM, Rob Foehl 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
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
Hi,
There might be some corner cases where running a combined RR/PE can cause
mysterious issues. For example, there was (or is - I'm not sure whether it's
fixed or not) an issue that a RR didn't advertise iBGP learned VPLS routes when
the RR itself had a local attachment circuit in the given
> Of craig washington
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 5:40 PM
>
> Hello all.
>
> Wondering if anyone is using MPLS with IPV6?
>
> I have read on 6PE and the vpn counterpart but these all seem to take into
> account that the CORE isn't running IPV6?
>
> My question is how can we get the ACTUAL
Thanks everyone for the feedback.
We are running RSVP so LDPv6 won't currently be an option.
I'll keep digging around, again, thank you everyone for the feedback.
From: juniper-nsp on behalf of Olivier
Benghozi
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:57 PM
To:
Hi Balasankar,
I dont have the same issue when I configure in the foreground.
I am running software version 15.1X49-D120.3 if that helps.
Ive been informed that we have support on this gear, so I will raise a case
via JTAC too.
Thanks!
Tom
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 at 08:28, Balasankar Rajaguru
6 matches
Mail list logo
