[149714] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Feb 13 00:05:46 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F3896AB.6040203@axu.tm>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:01:52 -0800
To: Aleksi Suhonen <nanog-poster@axu.tm>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
It has limitations, but, it's documented pretty well in the excellent =
Day One/Day Two Juniper books for IPv6 written by Chris Grundemann.=20
However, as others have said, I strongly subscribe to the school of =
"don't do that, it leads to unnecessary pain and provides little =
benefit.
Owen
On Feb 12, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
> Hello,
>=20
> keith tokash wrote:
>> 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;
>=20
> I haven't really looked very hard, since I subscribe to the stated =
reasons for keeping v4 and v6 sessions apart. (migration, max-pfx, ...)
>=20
> BUT
>=20
> To my knowledge, JunOS doesn't even support using a single TCP session =
to exchange routes of all address families. If someone knows how to do =
this - if even for just IPv4 and IPv6 unicast - let me know ... ;-)
>=20
> --=20
> Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy
> World Wide Web: www.axu.tm
