Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Martin List-Petersen]

On 26/05/10 19:55, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On May 26, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>> On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/05/10 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote:
> From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
 peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
 exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?
>>>
>>> Most Internet Exchanges do not allow to mix on the same transport. So
>>> IPv4 peering over IPv4 transport, IPv6 peering over IPv6 transport, you
>>> can use the same interface though.
>>
>> Most Internet Exchanges don't care what BGP protocol options consenting 
>> neighbours decide to use, in my experience. (If they cared, what could they 
>> do?)
> 
> Don't care?  I think you mean "don't know".
> 
> The exchange that starts snooping my BGP session to see what I am trading 
> with my peer is the exchange that will lose my business.
> 

Ok, let's clarify, what I was on about: I was talking about the peering
sessions to the route-servers.

What the IXP members do peering wise between themselves is hardly enforced.

Kind regards,
Martin List-Petersen
-- 
Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair
http://www.airwire.ie
Phone: 091-865 968

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On May 26, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> 
>> On 24/05/10 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote:
 From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
>>> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
>>> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?
>> 
>> Most Internet Exchanges do not allow to mix on the same transport. So
>> IPv4 peering over IPv4 transport, IPv6 peering over IPv6 transport, you
>> can use the same interface though.
> 
> Most Internet Exchanges don't care what BGP protocol options consenting 
> neighbours decide to use, in my experience. (If they cared, what could they 
> do?)

Don't care?  I think you mean "don't know".

The exchange that starts snooping my BGP session to see what I am trading with 
my peer is the exchange that will lose my business.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Joe Abley]

On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote:

> On 24/05/10 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote:
>>> From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
>> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
>> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?
> 
> Most Internet Exchanges do not allow to mix on the same transport. So
> IPv4 peering over IPv4 transport, IPv6 peering over IPv6 transport, you
> can use the same interface though.

Most Internet Exchanges don't care what BGP protocol options consenting 
neighbours decide to use, in my experience. (If they cared, what could they do?)


Joe

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Martin List-Petersen]

On 24/05/10 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote:
>>From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?

Most Internet Exchanges do not allow to mix on the same transport. So
IPv4 peering over IPv4 transport, IPv6 peering over IPv6 transport, you
can use the same interface though.

The separation also helps troubleshooting. So we always try to keep
peering and transport the same.

Kind regards,
Martin List-Petersen
-- 
Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair
http://www.airwire.ie
Phone: 091-865 968

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Mon, 24 May 2010, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:


At the Seattle Internet Exchange we have both IPv4 and IPv6 peering, via
discrete addresses, on the same interface.


That's how we do it here as well.

jms

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Seth Mattinen]

On 5/24/10 11:21 AM, Thomas Magill wrote:
>>From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?
> 
>  


Within my core I run multiprotocol BGP. At the edge it's all configured
with separate v4 and v6 neighbors.

~Seth

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Andy Davidson]

On 24 May 2010, at 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote:

> From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?

Different sessions, one for v4, one for v6.  This keeps config saner, therefore 
debugging easier.  It means you can split out your v4 and v6 edge in the future 
should you want to, without having to renumber and split out the sessions then.

Thanks
Andy

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

[George, Wes E IV [NTK]]

We've done it both ways.
We've found that there are sometimes issues with announcing IPv6 NLRI over IPv4 
BGP sessions depending on your chosen vendor and code version on both sides of 
the session. Specifically, we have seen some implementations where an 
IPv4-mapped IPv6 address (usually the IPv4 router-id or neighbor address) is 
announced as the next-hop, or a link-local address is used as the next-hop, or 
some random junk is announced as the next-hop, even with next-hop-self 
configured. All of these result in the receiving router dropping the 
announcements because it doesn't have a route to the next-hop. It's usually 
possible to work around this by using route policies to force the correct 
next-hop to be written on in/outbound announcements, and as we find it working 
improperly, we've been reporting bugs, but I thought it would be worth bringing 
this up as a caveat so that you can make sure your hardware/software of choice 
is behaving properly if you choose to go this route.
Also, I know of at least one vendor that didn't implement the converse 
functionality in CLI yet - it's impossible to configure an IPv6 neighbor 
address in the IPv4 address family in order to exchange IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 
BGP session.

Thanks,
Wes George

-Original Message-
From: Thomas Magill [mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:22 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Quick IP6/BGP question

>From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?



Thomas Magill
Network Engineer

Office: (858) 909-3777

Cell: (858) 869-9685
mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com <mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com>


provide-commerce
4840 Eastgate Mall

San Diego, CA  92121



ProFlowers <http://www.proflowers.com/>  | redENVELOPE
<http://www.redenvelope.com/>  | Cherry Moon Farms
<http://www.cherrymoonfarms.com/>  | Shari's Berries
<http://www.berries.com/>





This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies 
of the message.

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Thomas Magill]

Thanks (to you and everyone else that answered before).  It sounds like
everyone is in agreement.  I mostly ask because a customer of mine is
considering venturing into the ISP business and expressed interest in
offering IP6. If that is the case, I want to do it correctly from the
start. 

-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:30 AM
To: Thomas Magill
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

At Hurricane, most of our IPv6 peerings are exchanging over IPv6
addresses.

In general, most routers work better if you run IPv4 peering on IPv4 and
IPv6
peering on IPv6. In many cases, this is because the configuration files
are less
confusing more than any underlying dependency in the router OS.

YMMV, but, my recommendation is to peer v6 on v6 and v4 o v4.

Owen

On May 24, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Thomas Magill wrote:

>> From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Magill
> Network Engineer
> 
> Office: (858) 909-3777
> 
> Cell: (858) 869-9685
> mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com
<mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com> 
> 
> 
> provide-commerce 
> 4840 Eastgate Mall
> 
> San Diego, CA  92121
> 
> 
> 
> ProFlowers <http://www.proflowers.com/>  | redENVELOPE
> <http://www.redenvelope.com/>  | Cherry Moon Farms
> <http://www.cherrymoonfarms.com/>  | Shari's Berries
> <http://www.berries.com/> 
> 
> 

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Owen DeLong]

At Hurricane, most of our IPv6 peerings are exchanging over IPv6 addresses.

In general, most routers work better if you run IPv4 peering on IPv4 and IPv6
peering on IPv6. In many cases, this is because the configuration files are less
confusing more than any underlying dependency in the router OS.

YMMV, but, my recommendation is to peer v6 on v6 and v4 o v4.

Owen

On May 24, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Thomas Magill wrote:

>> From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Magill
> Network Engineer
> 
> Office: (858) 909-3777
> 
> Cell: (858) 869-9685
> mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com  
> 
> 
> provide-commerce 
> 4840 Eastgate Mall
> 
> San Diego, CA  92121
> 
> 
> 
> ProFlowers   | redENVELOPE
>   | Cherry Moon Farms
>   | Shari's Berries
>  
> 
> 

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Chuck Anderson]

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:21:45AM -0700, Thomas Magill wrote:
> From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?

I've never liked how you have to configure ::w.x.y.z/96 style 
IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses in order to use IPv6 NLRIs with IPv4 
BGP sessions, so I've always used separate native IPv6 sessions.

RE: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Michael K. Smith - Adhost]

> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Magill [mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:22 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Quick IP6/BGP question
> 
> >From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Magill
> Network Engineer
> 
> Office: (858) 909-3777
> 
> Cell: (858) 869-9685
> mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com
<mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com>
> 

At the Seattle Internet Exchange we have both IPv4 and IPv6 peering, via
discrete addresses, on the same interface.

Regards,

Mike
--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com
w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050
PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3  08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)

Re: Quick IP6/BGP question

[Kevin Oberman]

> Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:21:45 -0700
> From: "Thomas Magill" 
> 
> >From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?

Can't speak for "most of us", but we run an iBGP v4 mesh carrying both
v4 and v6 routes.

For external peers, we run separate peerings.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: ober...@es.net  Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751

Quick IP6/BGP question

[Thomas Magill]

>From the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6
peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to
exchange routes or doing IP6 peering?

 

Thomas Magill
Network Engineer

Office: (858) 909-3777

Cell: (858) 869-9685
mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com  


provide-commerce 
4840 Eastgate Mall

San Diego, CA  92121

 

ProFlowers   | redENVELOPE
  | Cherry Moon Farms
  | Shari's Berries