[149571] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel jaeggli)
Wed Feb 8 12:37:41 2012
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:36:50 -0800
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: keith tokash <ktokash@hotmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <COL103-W2405E59FCEA3D3AEA3283AAE7A0@phx.gbl>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/8/12 08:59 , keith tokash wrote:
>
> Hi,
I've done it either way, I prefer to put the v6 peers in a different
group than the v4 peers so that I can group the policies at the group
rather than neighbor level.
> I'm prepping an environment for v6 and I'm wondering what, if
> any, benefit there is to splitting v4 and v6 into separate groups.
> We're running Junipers and things are fairly neat and ordered; we have
> multiple links to a few providers in many sites, so we group them and
> apply the policies at the group level. We could stick the new v6
> neighbors into the same group and apply the policies at the neighbor
> level, or create new groups (i.e. Level3 and Level3v6).
>
> This
> might sound a little nit-picky, but I'm concerned that there's a nuance
> I'm not thinking of right now and I don't want to be "that guy" who puts
> something in place and is cursed for a decade.
>
> Thanks,
> Keith Tokash
>
