[j-nsp] LSP's with IPV6 on Juniper

[Jared Mauch]

> On Aug 29, 2018, at 1:14 AM, Rob Foehl <rwf at loonybin.net> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018, adamv0025 at 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