Yes, explicitly filtering prefixes outbound if you're an edge site and inbound if you're a service provider is the right way to do it, whether it's v4 or v6. For BGP particularly, IPv6 is really nothing special at all; just mirror your configurations and policies.
Depending on your OS, you may have to explicitly disable v6 routes being sent over a v4 session. That's possible to do but I don't know why one would want to in a truly dual-stack deployment. In v6 the only "v4 artifact" will be that the router ID is still a 32-bit number which is most commonly set to the v4 loopback or some such. Tony On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 07:58:26AM -0800, Scott Voll wrote: > > I'm currently using a filter list: > > > > ip as-path access-list 1 permit ^$ > > ip as-path access-list 1 deny .* > > > > to make sure I'm not a transit provider. > > > > in my googleing around I'm not seeing that done in IPv6 > > Besides the CPU impact (what Nick pointed out), this is actually *good* > practice, both for IPv4 and for IPv6. > > Easier on CPU load but more maintenance if prefixes keep being added > is to filter by prefix-list... so it depends a bit on how fast your > router's CPU is, how often prefixes change, etc. > > gert > -- > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! > // > www.muc.de/~gert/ > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany > [email protected] > fax: +49-89-35655025 > [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/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
