[171492] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laszlo Hanyecz)
Fri May 2 15:52:57 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Laszlo Hanyecz <laszlo@heliacal.net>
In-Reply-To: <7208d8ca20a14690acf8f34a934a68ec@AINET-EX13-S02.ainet.local>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 19:52:24 +0000
To: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Two different sessions using two different transport protocols. The v4 =
BGP session should have address family v6 disabled and vice versa. =
Exchange v4 routes over a v4 TCP connection, exchange v6 routes over a =
v6 TCP connection. Just treat them as independent protocols.=20
-Laszlo
On May 2, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net> wrote:
>=20
> Between peering routers on a dual-stacked network, is it considered =
best practices to have two BGP sessions (one for v4 and one for v6) =
between them? Or is it better to put v4 in the v6 session or v6 in the =
v4 session?
>=20
> According to docs, obviously all of these are supported and if both =
sides are dual stacked, even the next-hops don't need to be overwritten.
>=20
> Is there any community-approach to best practices here? Any FIB =
weirdness (e.g. IPv4 routes suddenly start sucking up IPv6 TCAM space, =
etc) that results with one solution over the other?
>=20
> Thanks in advance,
>=20
> DJ
