[126608] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Quick IP6/BGP question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chuck Anderson)
Mon May 24 14:30:56 2010
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 14:30:29 -0400
From: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <FA2E47FFA50291418803D2E7C1DF07F30B4ED3F8@SDEXCL01.Proflowers.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:21:45AM -0700, Thomas Magill wrote:
> From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?
I've never liked how you have to configure ::w.x.y.z/96 style
IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses in order to use IPv6 NLRIs with IPv4
BGP sessions, so I've always used separate native IPv6 sessions.
