Alexandre Snarskii писал(а) 2024-07-09 07:25:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 11:33:48AM -0400, Andrey Kostin via juniper-nsp
wrote:
[...]
The problem here is that route-reflector selects a path with ipv4
mapped
nexthop and advertises it over ipv6 session. I'm wondering, is anybody
already encountered this problem and found a solution how to make a RR
to advertise paths with a correct nexthop?
Have you considered making your inet6 sessions not unicast but
labeled-unicast
explicit-null too ? I guess it may prevent bgp from losing label..
No, I didn't, thanks for the clue. In this case if v6 prefix with v4
mapped next-hop is advertised via v6 session it should have VPN label
(explicit-null) and potentially could work in the same way as inet6
labeled-unicast over v4 session. This is an interesting idea, however
I'd like to have a plain v6 session as a backup in case if MPLS
forwarding path isn't available for any reason. Like with v4, if MPLS
path can't be established, forwarding can always fallback to plain IP. I
understand though, that having only label 2 attached to v6 packets
probably would work, although the label will be removed and added again
on every hop a packet passes. On the other hand, we're in the process of
implementing SR-ISIS, so this change would be a move in the opposite
direction, so I'd prefer to keep v6 session in it's natural state.
Anyways, thank you for the advice!
Kind regards,
Andrey
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
