Re: [c-nsp] QSFP to SFP+ over 300 meters: Can it be done out of box?
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Troy Lucero wrote: Seems there is no option here. The QSFP-40G/E-LR4 doesn't have an MPO connector like its' SR4 counterpart, so there is no MPO break-away option to choose from if I want to go 10gig over singlemode. Correct, LR4 is 4 10G CWDM waves over a single fiber pair instead of 4 parallell fibers like SR4. I can't be the only person who has tried this? Seems like a flaw in the standard to not allow you to connect 10gig beyond 300 meters right out of the box for devices that have QSFP ports. The people who wanted 40GE were datacenter and server guys. Most higher end datacom people only wanted 100GE. The number of variants wanted to be kept down. If you want 10GE-LR then you have to get dedicated ports for that or go 100GE (which I presume you'll consider budget suicide as well). 100GE does have a 10x10GE-LR breakout option (however, this is not an IEEE standard as far as I can tell). There is nothing fundamentally stopping for instance Cisco to produce a proprietary 4x10GE LR QSFP+, but I guess they didn't feel it made a lot of sense. http://www.finisar.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Pluggable%20Transceiver%20Challenges-ECOC2012-ChrisCole.pdf might be interesting to read if you want to see where things are and where they're headed for the future. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] QSFP to SFP+ over 300 meters: Can it be done out of box?
Traditionally most people aren't using those for long reach applications just higher top of rack density, or within the same datacenter. But now switches are starting to come with more and more qsfp+ ports. Good news is optics vendors like Avago, Finisar, etc. are making what you want which is a 4x10GE SM 10KM QFSP+ module. But they have only been announced in the few months so there is no Cisco or other device vendor version yet as far as I know. You may be able to get them and have them work via the unsupported-transceivers command, as long as the electrical,side remains compatible. Phil On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:08 PM, Troy Lucero t...@osihardware.com wrote: Anyone care to comment on trying to go from a 40gig port to a 10gig port over 300 meters? I seem to have discovered that the QSFP+ standard for 10 gig is not flexible for long-haul applications. I am deploying a couple Nexus 6004's (mixed 40gig and 10gig) for various distances but can't seem to find a basic way to connect without having to commit budget suicide. One of the selling points of the QSFP+ standard is that you can use a break-away cable for 10gig applications, right? Well, seems not really. Here are the 10gig options in a 40Gig port: -For 10 meter or less the solution is to use a QSFP-to-4xSFP10G-splitter/break-away/twinax cable. Check. -For 300 meter or less use QSFP-40G-SR4 with a MPO-to-4xLC splitter/break-away/fiber cable (multimode). (Looks like this: http://support.f5.com/kb/global/manual_images/MAN-0423-00/img_qsfp_breakout_cable.png) Check. -For 300m-10km use.? Seems there is no option here. The QSFP-40G/E-LR4 doesn't have an MPO connector like its' SR4 counterpart, so there is no MPO break-away option to choose from if I want to go 10gig over singlemode. I can't be the only person who has tried this? Seems like a flaw in the standard to not allow you to connect 10gig beyond 300 meters right out of the box for devices that have QSFP ports. Dear IEEE. My budget hates your standard. XOXO. tal meltdown prevention 8-oh-five-two-five-nine-eight-seven-69 / ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] QSFP to SFP+ over 300 meters: Can it be done out of box?
Thanks for the heads up on a 4x10 sm breakout, Phil. Do you happen to have a link for more info? I can't seem to find it in any online literature, or http://finisar.com/products/optical-modules/QSFP Probably something I will have to call and ask for. :-) tal -Original Message- From: Phil Bedard phil...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 02:10:39 To: Troy Lucerot...@osihardware.com Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.netcisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] QSFP to SFP+ over 300 meters: Can it be done out of box? Traditionally most people aren't using those for long reach applications just higher top of rack density, or within the same datacenter. But now switches are starting to come with more and more qsfp+ ports. Good news is optics vendors like Avago, Finisar, etc. are making what you want which is a 4x10GE SM 10KM QFSP+ module. But they have only been announced in the few months so there is no Cisco or other device vendor version yet as far as I know. You may be able to get them and have them work via the unsupported-transceivers command, as long as the electrical,side remains compatible. Phil On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:08 PM, Troy Lucero t...@osihardware.com wrote: Anyone care to comment on trying to go from a 40gig port to a 10gig port over 300 meters? I seem to have discovered that the QSFP+ standard for 10 gig is not flexible for long-haul applications. I am deploying a couple Nexus 6004's (mixed 40gig and 10gig) for various distances but can't seem to find a basic way to connect without having to commit budget suicide. One of the selling points of the QSFP+ standard is that you can use a break-away cable for 10gig applications, right? Well, seems not really. Here are the 10gig options in a 40Gig port: -For 10 meter or less the solution is to use a QSFP-to-4xSFP10G-splitter/break-away/twinax cable. Check. -For 300 meter or less use QSFP-40G-SR4 with a MPO-to-4xLC splitter/break-away/fiber cable (multimode). (Looks like this: http://support.f5.com/kb/global/manual_images/MAN-0423-00/img_qsfp_breakout_cable.png) Check. -For 300m-10km use.? Seems there is no option here. The QSFP-40G/E-LR4 doesn't have an MPO connector like its' SR4 counterpart, so there is no MPO break-away option to choose from if I want to go 10gig over singlemode. I can't be the only person who has tried this? Seems like a flaw in the standard to not allow you to connect 10gig beyond 300 meters right out of the box for devices that have QSFP ports. Dear IEEE. My budget hates your standard. XOXO. tal meltdown prevention 8-oh-five-two-five-nine-eight-seven-69 / ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Changing ve id doesn't withdraw old prefixes
Hi Jason, It was myself on the packet exchange forum with the issue. After removing the config and reading the issue resolved itself. Have you tried removing the full config for the vfi and associated member ports and re-adding? Nick On 21/06/2013 00:37, Pshem Kowalczyk pshe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, It does look like a bug. How often would you change ve id though? I'd expect that to be fairly static once set up. We had a number of issues of that sort (Cisco expected the number/id to be static during the lifetime of a service, but we changed it). Most of those bugs ultimately got fixed, but in some cases we were told that the conditions are too unusual, or there is some other workaround. kind regards Pshem ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] QSFP to SFP+ over 300 meters: Can it be done out ofbox?
Thank you for the response, Mikael. Using the link you provided I was able to find the updated finisar presentation. (Note years later they are still using the good, bad, and the ugly bit.) Luckily there is now a slide illustrating precisely what I am looking for. (Page 9 on the following slide-show depicts a 4x10GB LR breakout cable over singlemode.) http://nanog.org/sites/default/files/mon.general.cole_.optics.34.pdf I'm a bit confused by this illustration but, nevertheless, one step closer connector to finding an orderable part. tal --Original Message-- From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Troy Lucero Cc: 'cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net' Subject: Re: [c-nsp] QSFP to SFP+ over 300 meters: Can it be done out ofbox? Sent: Jun 20, 2013 10:58 PM On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Troy Lucero wrote: Seems there is no option here. The QSFP-40G/E-LR4 doesn't have an MPO connector like its' SR4 counterpart, so there is no MPO break-away option to choose from if I want to go 10gig over singlemode. Correct, LR4 is 4 10G CWDM waves over a single fiber pair instead of 4 parallell fibers like SR4. I can't be the only person who has tried this? Seems like a flaw in the standard to not allow you to connect 10gig beyond 300 meters right out of the box for devices that have QSFP ports. The people who wanted 40GE were datacenter and server guys. Most higher end datacom people only wanted 100GE. The number of variants wanted to be kept down. If you want 10GE-LR then you have to get dedicated ports for that or go 100GE (which I presume you'll consider budget suicide as well). 100GE does have a 10x10GE-LR breakout option (however, this is not an IEEE standard as far as I can tell). There is nothing fundamentally stopping for instance Cisco to produce a proprietary 4x10GE LR QSFP+, but I guess they didn't feel it made a lot of sense. http://www.finisar.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Pluggable%20Transceiver%20Challenges-ECOC2012-ChrisCole.pdf might be interesting to read if you want to see where things are and where they're headed for the future. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Point to Point L2VPN on ASR9K
Hi, Im working out P2P L2VPN between ASR9K and IOS platforms. Attachment circuits at both ends are configured with Vlan encapsulation. On IOS platform (NPE-G2), PW VC type is detected as ETHERNET VLAN (type 4) and on ASR9K, by default it is detected as ETHERNET (type 5). I changed the transport mode in ASR as vlan and the type got changed to ETHERNET VLAN. After this change, VC comes up. But there is no communication between CE routers. I tried Interworking IP at both ends, then it is working. But the existing configurations in the IOS platforms has to be modified. Has any one experienced this problem on ASR9K? Appreciate your immediate response Regards, Darshak ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Point to Point L2VPN on ASR9K
Hi, I have the same configuration as you describe. asr9k ---vc--- c7201 My PW is working. c7201#sh mpls l2transport vc 3882 Local intf Local circuit Dest addressVC ID Status - -- --- -- -- Gi0/1.3882 Eth VLAN 3882 10.10.1.19 3882 UP asr9k#show l2vpn bridge-domain neighbor 10.10.1.17 pw-id 3882 det . PW Status TLV in use MPLS Local Remote -- --- Label16100 474 Group ID 0x4e 0x0 InterfaceAccess PW Harmoni_23 MTU 1500 1500 Control word disabled disabled PW type Ethernet Ethernet VCCV CV type 0x20x12 (LSP ping verification)(LSP ping verification) VCCV CC type 0x60x6 (router alert label) (router alert label) (TTL expiry) (TTL expiry) -- --- .. But I saw strange behavior when tried to setup new PW. They don`t want UP. After change VC, - PW go to UP. I do not know what the problem was, but I can't reproduce it on the next day when I had time. At the moment I have only one working PW between these devices. On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:59:03 +0530 darshak pp darsha...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Im working out P2P L2VPN between ASR9K and IOS platforms. Attachment circuits at both ends are configured with Vlan encapsulation. On IOS platform (NPE-G2), PW VC type is detected as ETHERNET VLAN (type 4) and on ASR9K, by default it is detected as ETHERNET (type 5). I changed the transport mode in ASR as vlan and the type got changed to ETHERNET VLAN. After this change, VC comes up. But there is no communication between CE routers. I tried Interworking IP at both ends, then it is working. But the existing configurations in the IOS platforms has to be modified. Has any one experienced this problem on ASR9K? Appreciate your immediate response Regards, Darshak ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -- Alexandr Gurbo ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] QSFP to SFP+ over 300 meters: Can it be done out of box?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Troy Lucero t...@osihardware.com wrote: Anyone care to comment on trying to go from a 40gig port to a 10gig port over 300 meters? Yes its possible. No idea if Cisco offer it but certainly other vendors do. Its not a IEEE 'standard' but it certainly exists, because there is demand for it. The vendor that I work for ships: - 40GBASE-XSR4 QSFP+: 40G over 300m OM4 MMF. Optically compatible with 10GBASE-SR. - 40GBASE-PLRL4 QSFP+: 40G over 1km SMF. More cost effective than 40G-LR4 - (there is also 10GBASE-LRL SFP+ which is optically compatible with 10GBASE-LR up to 1km.) cheers, lincoln. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] IPv6 Deployment / 6PE
Dear Friends, I am working on IPv6 deployment at our Backbone. Our network design is as below: PEs --- MP-BGP ---RR ( address-family vpnv4 ) RR-- BGP-IGW ( address-family ipv4 ) what i understand is : - Add address family IPv6 at PEs : address-family ipv6 neighbor x.x.x.x activate( x.x.x.x is IPv4 address of RR ) neighbor x.x.x.x send-community both exit-address-family - Add address family IPv6 at RR address-family ipv6 neighbor y.y.y.y send-community both (y.y.y.y is IPv4 address of PE ) neighbor y.y.y.y route-reflector-client neighbor y.y.y.y.y activate - Add address-family vpnv6 ( RR-IGW ) This is the plan , i dont know if i am missing something. I have Full BGP table IPv4+ IPv6 from my UP LINKS , in order to deploy IPv6 so i need MP-BGP ( RR--- IGW ). We can say MP-BGP ( vpnv4 ) will carry IPv6 packets as a label across IPv4 MPLS Backone. Thanks in advance for sharing info. Regards, Ahmed ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 Deployment / 6PE
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Ahmed Hilmy wrote: Dear Friends, I am working on IPv6 deployment at our Backbone. Our network design is as below: PEs --- MP-BGP ---RR ( address-family vpnv4 ) RR-- BGP-IGW ( address-family ipv4 ) what i understand is : - Add address family IPv6 at PEs : address-family ipv6 neighbor x.x.x.x activate( x.x.x.x is IPv4 address of RR ) neighbor x.x.x.x send-community both exit-address-family Excellent document from cisco on the matter: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1835/products_data_sheet09186a008052edd3.html You need send-label. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 Deployment / 6PE
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Ahmed Hilmy wrote: We can say MP-BGP ( vpnv4 ) will carry IPv6 packets as a label across IPv4 MPLS Backone. Thanks in advance for sharing info. vpnv6 is what you need for 6VPE (IPv6 VRFs). 6PE is for Internet IPv6, and there you do it under address-family ipv6 unicast but you add send-label. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 Deployment / 6PE
Thanks Mikeal, I have seen this dos and it is super useful, but still i need to confirm the plan for you guys !!! Regards, Ahmed On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.sewrote: On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Ahmed Hilmy wrote: Dear Friends, I am working on IPv6 deployment at our Backbone. Our network design is as below: PEs --- MP-BGP ---RR ( address-family vpnv4 ) RR-- BGP-IGW ( address-family ipv4 ) what i understand is : - Add address family IPv6 at PEs : address-family ipv6 neighbor x.x.x.x activate( x.x.x.x is IPv4 address of RR ) neighbor x.x.x.x send-community both exit-address-family Excellent document from cisco on the matter: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/**products/sw/iosswrel/ps1835/**products_data_ **sheet09186a008052edd3.htmlhttp://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1835/products_data_sheet09186a008052edd3.html You need send-label. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 Deployment / 6PE
Thanks Mikeal. address-family ipv6 unicast but you add send-label. at PEs RR ? On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.sewrote: On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Ahmed Hilmy wrote: We can say MP-BGP ( vpnv4 ) will carry IPv6 packets as a label across IPv4 MPLS Backone. Thanks in advance for sharing info. vpnv6 is what you need for 6VPE (IPv6 VRFs). 6PE is for Internet IPv6, and there you do it under address-family ipv6 unicast but you add send-label. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 Deployment / 6PE
Check the link below http://eng-mssk.blogspot.com/2012/10/mpls-l3-vpn-6pe-ebgp-pe-ce-routing.html BR, Mohammad Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:57:16 +0300 From: hilmy...@gmail.com To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] IPv6 Deployment / 6PE Dear Friends, I am working on IPv6 deployment at our Backbone. Our network design is as below: PEs --- MP-BGP ---RR ( address-family vpnv4 ) RR-- BGP-IGW ( address-family ipv4 ) what i understand is : - Add address family IPv6 at PEs : address-family ipv6 neighbor x.x.x.x activate( x.x.x.x is IPv4 address of RR ) neighbor x.x.x.x send-community both exit-address-family - Add address family IPv6 at RR address-family ipv6 neighbor y.y.y.y send-community both (y.y.y.y is IPv4 address of PE ) neighbor y.y.y.y route-reflector-client neighbor y.y.y.y.y activate - Add address-family vpnv6 ( RR-IGW ) This is the plan , i dont know if i am missing something. I have Full BGP table IPv4+ IPv6 from my UP LINKS , in order to deploy IPv6 so i need MP-BGP ( RR--- IGW ). We can say MP-BGP ( vpnv4 ) will carry IPv6 packets as a label across IPv4 MPLS Backone. Thanks in advance for sharing info. Regards, Ahmed ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Changing ve id doesn't withdraw old prefixes
Hi Jason, I'm actually surprised it works for you with manually defined RDs on ME switches, looks like Cisco got that one fixed, yet unfortunately still not quite there with the bgp signaled VPLS I see :) adam ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] IPv6 Deployment / 6PE
Hello Mikael, it is clear to add send-label at PEs RR. Now i am thinking about IGW, if we consider it as a PE so we have to enable MP-BGP. RR is directly connected to IGW, i am thinking to establish a new link for native IPv6 ? So at RR has two links connected to IGW, one of them is address family ipv4 and other IPv6 address ? What do u think ? Regards, Ahmed On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Ahmed Hilmy hilmy...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Mikeal. address-family ipv6 unicast but you add send-label. at PEs RR ? On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.sewrote: On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Ahmed Hilmy wrote: We can say MP-BGP ( vpnv4 ) will carry IPv6 packets as a label across IPv4 MPLS Backone. Thanks in advance for sharing info. vpnv6 is what you need for 6VPE (IPv6 VRFs). 6PE is for Internet IPv6, and there you do it under address-family ipv6 unicast but you add send-label. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Drawing Tool
Hi all and thanks for the kind repliesActually i need it for my own , so I am looking for free tools BR, From: p...@wozney.ca Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:29:41 -0700 Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Drawing Tool To: gunner_...@live.com CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:17 AM, M K gunner_...@live.com wrote: What other options we have to draw network diagrams other than visio and edraw max ? I use Lucidchart. They have a (limited) free plan, but I pay for the pro account. I like how the diagrams look and it is pretty easy to work with - also being a cloud app it makes collaboration a bit easier as you can share the drawings right in the app. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] ipv6
Here is what we sort of followed: * Get your IPv6 block from your RIR; typically a /32 but we were able to negotiate a /28 * Come up with a good IPv6 address plan; spend some good time on this * Enable IPv6 connectivity to your upstream and public peering connections along with BGP * Enable dual stack on your backbone and edge devices (routers) and decide which IGP you will use (OSPFv3 or ISIS) At that point you should be able to ping via IPv6 from any backbone/edge router to another. With regards to the IP addressing scheme, we followed a breakdown of assigning /34(s) to each market we're in (about 16). Those market /34s were then broken up into /48s to be handed out to our customers who in turn will be able to break them down into /56s or /64s. We chose /48s because we deal with enterprise customers (no residential) and the general rule (as per ARIN) is to give them a /48 block. Even with this rather wasteful allocation, we still will not come anywhere close to chewing up our space in the coming decades. :) With regards to servers and IT related things, we've struggled in that dept but we've managed to convince IT of the importance of at least having a public DNS server with IPv6 access (dual stacked) for our beta customers. Still have lots to learn and we're really hoping to avoid any instances of CGN if at all possible. Jose On 6/5/2013 5:00 PM, Jay Ford wrote: On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Aaron wrote: There seems to be so many ways to do ipv6..(I'm not clear on what to use and why to use it and when to use it..) I work for an isp of about 30,000 customers. - Ftth - Dsl - Cable modem What is the best way to migrate my customers to IPv6 with zero impact (meaning, all internet and services are still reachable when done moving to ipv6) ? I don't need configs and technical details, just a technique or technology answer for now will suffice to get my moving in a research direction. The best general approach is to add native IPv6 alongside IPv4 plan to run that way for several years. Most clients will now do the right thing when presented with working IPv4 IPv6 connectivity, so your job is to add working native IPv6. You should try very hard to avoid NATed IPv6, so if your IPv4 is NATed now you'll have to keep that difference in mind. This sequence worked well for us: o devise an IPv6 address plan o get IPv6 address space from ARIN o establish native IPv6 connectivity upstream o enable IPv6 in your routed net o enable IPv6 to net-related services (DNS, NTP, syslog, SNMP...) o enable IPv6 on the net staff desktop net, so they can in fact have to use it every day o educate users, at least those who know what IP is o enable IPv6 to some early adopter users o enable IPv6 to the rest of the users It really wasn't that hard for us to roll out native IPv6. It took a while, but that's a reason to get started rather than delay. There are some things which might not yet be up to IPv6, mainly things which try to be extra smart (firewalls, load balancers, home gateways...) things which are dumb (printers, embedded control devices, home gateways...). Yes, I know I put home gateways in both lists. ;^) Most things in the middle of the device spectrum behave pretty well these days. Jay Ford, Network Engineering Group, Information Technology Services University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 email: jay-f...@uiowa.edu, phone: 319-335-, fax: 319-335-2951 ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
