# IPv6 over MPLS 6PE/6VPE
**URL:** https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118
**Category:** Lessons Discussion
**Created:** [March 8, 2018, 10:59am UTC](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118 "2018-03-08T10:59:00Z")
**Posts on this page:** 10
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@jallen314](https://forum.networklessons.com/u/jallen314)
#### Post date: [January 22, 2023, 4:58pm UTC](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118/21 "2023-01-22T16:58:12Z")
2nd video 6vPE is left only audio.
---
### Author:  [@lagapidis](https://forum.networklessons.com/u/lagapidis)
#### Post date: [January 23, 2023, 5:16pm UTC](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118/22 "2023-01-23T17:16:06Z")
Hello Justin
I went in and checked and saw that I was able to have both audio and video on the 6VPE video, so it is likely some setting on your end. Are you experiencing this problem only on the second video or on both videos in the lesson? How about other videos on other lessons? Also, can you try to open the same page using a different browser? If the problem persists, let us know so that we can further troubleshoot the issue and help you resolve it.
I hope this has been helpful!
Laz
---
### Author:  [@jallen314](https://forum.networklessons.com/u/jallen314)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2023, 9:11am UTC](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118/23 "2023-01-25T09:11:38Z")
hmm weird idk what happened, but now it is working fine. This is usually on the application side when it happens. Maybe it was just a bug. I hope I didn’t waste too much of your time. It was only the second video . No other videos that I watched had that problem.
---
### Author:  [@lagapidis](https://forum.networklessons.com/u/lagapidis)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2023, 6:33am UTC](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118/25 "2023-04-25T06:33:29Z")
Hello Guy
I’m not sure I completely understand your question. Can you rephrase it and also show us the particular configurations that you are confused about? Thanks!
Laz
---
### Author:  [@corecomm99](https://forum.networklessons.com/u/corecomm99)
#### Post date: [April 26, 2023, 12:58pm UTC](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118/26 "2023-04-26T12:58:14Z")
Nevermind, I got it! Thank You
---
### Author:  [@kaysplace4eva](https://forum.networklessons.com/u/kaysplace4eva)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2023, 6:25am UTC](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118/27 "2023-09-15T06:25:39Z")
i have a network running ipv6 however the mpls backbone is running ipv4 while every other devices are running ipv6 but i am finding it difficult to ping through end to end.
i need your help please.
---
### Author:  [@lagapidis](https://forum.networklessons.com/u/lagapidis)
#### Post date: [September 18, 2023, 2:57pm UTC](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118/28 "2023-09-18T14:57:40Z")
Hello Adekunle
There may be several issues involved in the successful communication between devices across an MPLS infrastructure. In order to get this to work, you must employ some sort of tunneling so that your IPv6 traffic is tunneled over the IPv4 MPLS infrastructure. One way to do this is described in this lesson that shows how to successfully achieve this using 6PE/6VPE:
> **[IPv6 over MPLS 6PE/6VPE](https://networklessons.com/ipv6/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe)**
>
> IPv6 over MPLS 6PE/VPE allows you to run IPv6 over an MPLS IPv4-only core network using dual stack PE routers. We explain how to configure 6PE and 6VPE.
Let us know some more details about your setup and at what point you are having difficulty so that we can help you further.
I hope this has been helpful!
Laz
---
### Author:  [@davidilles](https://forum.networklessons.com/u/davidilles)
#### Post date: [September 23, 2026, 9:11am UTC](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118/29 "2026-09-23T09:11:27Z")
Hello, everyone
Is there any point in running 6PE these days? If we want to provide support for IPv6, the most logical option to me is to just run 6VPE.
6VPE is more consistent with our IPv4 configuration since we pretty much configure it identically, all we have to do is initiliaze IPv6 and run VPNv6 in addition to VPNv4. Although the configuration is longer, 6VPE allows us to build actual VPN by using VRFs, RDs, RTs, separate our customers, and so on.
//Edit: Is it even possible to use 6PE if we’re already running MPLS IPv4 L3 VPNs? I can’t enable IPv6 on an interface unless its initiliazed under the VRF. However, if I initiliaze IPv6 under it, it will run under the VRF and we’ll just have classic 6VPE, not 6PE.
Thank you
David
---
### Author:  [@lagapidis](https://forum.networklessons.com/u/lagapidis)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2026, 3:47am UTC](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118/30 "2026-09-28T03:47:37Z")
Hello David
Yes, there is a real, non-trivial practical reason why 6PE is still relevant today. The distinction is not simply “6VPE is always the better choice.” The two mechanisms **solve different problems** , and the correct choice depends on what service is being delivered, not on which one is newer or “more consistent” with existing configs. Specifically:
- 6PE provides global-table IPv6 reachability across an IPv4 MPLS core, using the global IPv6 routing table on the PE routers. It is the leaner option when the goal is simply “provide IPv6 connectivity across an existing IPv4-only MPLS backbone” without VRFs, Route Distinguishers, or Route Targets to be provisioned per customer.
- 6VPE provides IPv6 VPN service (multi-tenant separation, overlapping address space, extranet/hub-and-spoke policy via Route Targets) using VRFs, closely mirroring the BGP/MPLS IPv4 L3VPN (VPNv4) model.
So if an operator’s requirement is per-customer VPN segmentation and they already run VPNv4 L3VPN, 6VPE is indeed the natural, more elegant extension to use, since the IPv6 service follows essentially the same VRF-based service model. But if the requirement is only global IPv6 reachability (no customer-to-customer isolation needed), 6VPE would add unnecessary complexity (VRF, RD, RT management, per-customer route-target policy) for something 6PE does more simply. So 6PE still has a genuine practical role. It has not been superseded by 6VPE, but it is simply intended for a different use case.
> [@davidilles](#):
>
> Is it even possible to use 6PE if we’re already running MPLS IPv4 L3 VPNs?
Actually, yes, 6PE can coexist with an existing MPLS IPv4 L3VPN network. The key is that 6PE operates in the global IPv6 routing table, while the existing IPv4 L3VPN service operates inside VRFs.
However, if the interface in question is already assigned to a VRF, then any IPv6 you enable on it **must also belong to that VRF**. That makes it part of a 6VPE service, not 6PE.
In other words, you cannot use 6PE on the same VRF-bound customer interface. But you can still run 6PE elsewhere on the same PE and across the same MPLS core, using interfaces that belong to the global routing table. Make sense?
I hope this has been helpful!
Laz
---
### Author:  [@davidilles](https://forum.networklessons.com/u/davidilles)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2026, 4:58am UTC](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118/31 "2026-09-28T04:58:29Z")
Hello Laz,
Thank you for the detailed explanation!!
A quick follow-up, from the perspective of the 6PE solution, wouldn’t a single label be enough to support the end-to-end transport of IPv6 packets between PE routers?
In other words, the PE routers (or the PE - RR routers) refuse to use any IPv6 BGP prefixes where the next-hop is IPv4 because they consider it invalid. The only way to fix this is to run IPv6 labeled unicast and advertise the prefix with a label.
As my book states (MPLS and VPN Architectures)
> An IPv6 BGP route is considered reachable if the IPv6 BGP next-hop is an IPv4-compatible address and the PE router has received a label for the IPv4 address from its downstream neighbor, indicating there is an end-to-end LSP toward the remote BGP peer.
However, why doesn’t this work if we **aren** ’t running IPv6 labeled unicast? In other words, in my lab, the IPv6 BGP route still has an IPv4 next-hop that has a valid LSP, it’s just that the bgp router still considers it as invalid unless I strictly define the bgp peering as **labeled unicast**.
This causes the LSP to use two labels.. and I am not sure why the second (the BGP label) is necessary.
Thank you
David
[Previous page](https://forum.networklessons.com/t/ipv6-over-mpls-6pe-6vpe/3118.md?page=1)