nanog mailing list archives
Re: bgp for ipv6 question
From: John Osmon <josmon () rigozsaurus com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:21:39 -0700
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 07:58:10AM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 08:08 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:I recommend keeping your network as congruent between IPv4 and IPv6 as possible, with dual-stack.Why?
I asked a similar question a few years ago: http://seclists.org/nanog/2007/Aug/653 Most of the answers came back along the lines of "keep your routing boundaries congruent." Doing so makes documentation and troubleshooting simpler -- having non-congruent boundaries is more complex and error prone. However, if a network you're running calls for non-congruency -- go for it! Just be cognizant of the trade offs.
Current thread:
- bgp for ipv6 question Deric Kwok (Feb 14)
- Re: bgp for ipv6 question Jared Mauch (Feb 14)
- Re: bgp for ipv6 question fredrik danerklint (Feb 14)
- Re: bgp for ipv6 question Alain Hebert (Feb 14)
- Re: bgp for ipv6 question Karl Auer (Feb 14)
- Re: bgp for ipv6 question Owen DeLong (Feb 14)
- Re: bgp for ipv6 question Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 21)
- Re: bgp for ipv6 question John Osmon (Feb 14)
- Re: bgp for ipv6 question fredrik danerklint (Feb 14)
- Re: bgp for ipv6 question Jared Mauch (Feb 14)
- Re: bgp for ipv6 question Job Snijders (Feb 14)