nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs
From: Grzegorz Janoszka <Grzegorz () Janoszka pl>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:33:17 +0100
On 08-02-12 17:59, 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; 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).
Sometimes we have the same group for v4 and v6, but in most cases we have different ones. One of the basic reasons is different max-pref setting. Most policies can be used in two address families, you can also match prefixes, but you cannot have v4 and v6 prefixes in one term. So in your policies you have to have at least two terms - one for v4 prefixes, one for v6 prefixes. -- Grzegorz Janoszka
Current thread:
- IPv6 explicit BGP group configs keith tokash (Feb 08)
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Leo Bicknell (Feb 08)
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Grzegorz Janoszka (Feb 08)
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Leo Bicknell (Feb 08)
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Joel jaeggli (Feb 08)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Aleksi Suhonen (Feb 12)
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Owen DeLong (Feb 12)