> Q: IPv6 auto-configuration on p-t-p core links: Good or bad idea? I > guess the downside is comparable to using RFC1918 addresses on Internet > core router's interfaces, where e.g. traces break.
Why on earth would you want to use anything other than static IPv6 addresses for your p-t-p core links? > Q: We run an MPLS VPN network, global routing only used for management. > According to this document (which should also cover 12.2SX): > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6-ov_mpls_6vpe.html#wp1054029 > > > 6VPE supports an MPLS IPv4-signaled core. An MPLS IPv6-signaled core > > is not supported. > > We have to keep an IPv4 core then? I guess the important part is to > enable IPv6 for the users and services, but (excuse my french) it seems > a little half-assed to not support an IPv6 core. Especially MPLS being > what it is. If you want IPv6 VPN you still need an IPv4 core, yes. Just another missing feature (and it's missing from the Juniper side too...) > Q: Should our initial "test phase" with IPv6 be accomplished using > FE00::/7 local addresses (as per RFC 4193), or should we just aim at > starting out with globally unique addresses? (I assume they're almost > trivial to apply for and have allocated.) Get your own IPv6 prefix and start your testing with that. It's easy. > Q: We currently use IPv4 PI address space. Any point(s) in not applying > for IPv6 PI address space? We have ~25 larger geographic sites and ~150 > smaller. We're logically strictly hierarchical, so there isn't much need > for a lot of prefixes. We currently use about 1/3rd of the /16s in > 10.0.0.0/8 network wide, mostly /24 subnets. A single /48 would thus > easily fit our needs. If you're a RIPE LIR then you can easily obtain IPv6 prefix(es) from RIPE. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [email protected] _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
