[111330] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: [Update] Re: New ISP to market, BCP 38, and new tactics
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Skeeve Stevens)
Tue Feb 3 20:51:36 2009
From: "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve@skeeve.org>
To: "'Nathan Ward'" <nanog@daork.net>,
"'nanog list'" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <A84A0EB0-2138-4003-9A12-BCD8E0341877@daork.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:53:32 +1100
Reply-To: skeeve@skeeve.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Agreed. Keeping it separate works very well. Can be the same interface
sure... but do it as a separate session.
...Skeeve
-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Ward [mailto:nanog@daork.net]
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:40 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: [Update] Re: New ISP to market, BCP 38, and new tactics
On 4/02/2009, at 2:33 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> - Currently, (as I write), I'm migrating my entire core from IPv4 to
> IPv6. I've got the space, and I love to learn, so I'm just lab-ing
> it up
> now to see how things will flow with all iBGP v4 routes being
> advertised/routed over v6.
Don't advertise v4 prefixes in v6 sessions, keep them separate.
If you do, you have to do set next-hops with route maps and things,
it's kind of nasty.
Better to just run a v4 BGP mesh and a v6 BGP mesh.
--
Nathan Ward
