Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-04 Thread Masataka Ohta
Mark Tinka wrote: MPLS with nested labels, which is claimed to scale because nesting represents route hierarchy, just does not scale because source hosts are required to provide nested labels, which means the source hosts have the current most routing table at destinations, which requires flat r

Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-04 Thread Mark Tinka
On 4/4/22 15:45, Masataka Ohta wrote: MPLS with nested labels, which is claimed to scale because nesting represents route hierarchy, just does not scale because source hosts are required to provide nested labels, which means the source hosts have the current most routing table at destination

Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-04 Thread Dave Taht
The other question for this list I'd basically had was this: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6 > Please let me know if you feel that it should be possible to > completely disable v4-via-v6 even on newer kernels, and whether you > feel that v4-via-v6 should be disabl

Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-04 Thread Masataka Ohta
Dave Taht wrote: Are MPLS or SR too heavy a bat? MPLS was not an option at the time. It might become one. MPLS with nested labels, which is claimed to scale because nesting represents route hierarchy, just does not scale because source hosts are required to provide nested labels, which means

Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-04 Thread Dave Taht
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 5:16 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 4/4/22 03:06, Dave Taht wrote: > > > I'm actually not here to start a debate... happy to learn that the v4 > > over v6 feature I'm > > playing with actually exists in another protocol, mainly. I'm > > critically dependent on > > source sp

Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-04 Thread Masataka Ohta
Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: Hello Ohta-san Hi, it is hopeless. If you look at it, LS - as OSPF and ISIS use it - My team developed our own. Hierarchical QoS Link Information Protocol (HQLIP) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ohta-ric-hqlip/ which support 256

Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-04 Thread Mark Tinka
On 4/4/22 03:06, Dave Taht wrote: I'm actually not here to start a debate... happy to learn that the v4 over v6 feature I'm playing with actually exists in another protocol, mainly. I'm critically dependent on source specific routing, also, so I am hoping there's an isis or ospf that can do w

Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-04 Thread Mark Tinka
On 4/4/22 02:55, Dave Taht wrote: it was how hard adding source specific routing to isis turned out to be that turned me. At the time I needed simple means to get ipv6 working on multiple consumer uplinks. I suppose the presence of MPLS (and SR) for many operators is probably why this use-

RE: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-04 Thread Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG
ot the ill-fated U-Turn protocol, that one had its own issues. Keep safe; Pascal > -Original Message- > From: NANOG On Behalf Of > Masataka Ohta > Sent: dimanche 3 avril 2022 15:46 > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols > > Dave Taht

RE: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-03 Thread Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG
r usual vendor hardware though. Keep safe; Pascal > -Original Message- > From: NANOG On Behalf Of Dave > Taht > Sent: lundi 4 avril 2022 2:56 > To: Mark Tinka > Cc: NANOG > Subject: Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 12:04 PM

Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-03 Thread Dave Taht
I'm actually not here to start a debate... happy to learn that the v4 over v6 feature I'm playing with actually exists in another protocol, mainly. I'm critically dependent on source specific routing, also, so I am hoping there's an isis or ospf that can do what I need, or now that I have more rout

Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-03 Thread Dave Taht
On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 12:04 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 4/3/22 13:55, Dave Taht wrote: > > > Periodically I still do some work on routing protocols. 12? years ago I had > > kind > > of given up on ospf and isis, and picked the babel protocol as an IGP > > for meshy networks because I felt li

Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-03 Thread Mark Tinka
On 4/3/22 13:55, Dave Taht wrote: Periodically I still do some work on routing protocols. 12? years ago I had kind of given up on ospf and isis, and picked the babel protocol as an IGP for meshy networks because I felt link-state had gone as far as it could and somehow unifying BGP DV with an

Re: V4 via V6 and IGP routing protocols

2022-04-03 Thread Masataka Ohta
Dave Taht wrote: Periodically I still do some work on routing protocols. 12? years ago I had kind of given up on ospf and isis, and picked the babel protocol as an IGP for meshy networks because I felt link-state had gone as far as it could and somehow unifying BGP DV with an IGP that was also D