We try to keep IPv4 and IPv6 configuration always distinct from each other, where possible. Thus, not mixing v4 and v6 peerings in the same groups. This kind of ships in the night approach makes it much more comfortable to operate the network as it minimizes the risk that changes related to one family impacts the other one too.
Antti On 29.06.2018 18:01, Rob Foehl wrote: > Wondering aloud a bit... I've seen plenty of cases where wedging > parallel v4/v6 sessions into the same BGP group and letting the router > sort out which AFI it's supposed to be using on each session works fine, > and nearly as many where configuring anything family-specific starts to > get ugly without splitting them into separate v4/v6 groups. Are there > any particularly compelling reasons to prefer one over the other? > > I can think of a bunch of reasons for and against on both sides, and > several ways to handle it with apply-groups or commit scripts. Curious > what others are doing here. > > Thanks! > > -Rob > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > -- CSC - Tieteen tietotekniikan keskus Oy:n asiakas- seka sidosryhmarekisterien henkilotietojen kasittely kuvataan tietosuojaselosteissa: https://www.csc.fi/tietosuoja CSC - IT Center for Science Ltd processes customer and other stakeholder personal information in the following way: https://www.csc.fi/privacy _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
