In my view, the benefits of keeping them separate far outweigh the
additional effort of creating and managing the additional groups.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Rob Foehl wrote:
> Wondering aloud a bit... I've seen plenty of cases where wedging parallel
> v4/v6 sessions into the same BGP
Hi Rob,
We keep the configs separate per address-family.
—
Sebastian Becker
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
On 29/Jun/18 22:26, Rob Foehl wrote:
>
> So... Is that a vote for or against, and which one? ;)
I wouldn't do it.
One would argue that it's to reduce time and effort. However, if you are
researching the method and asking on this list, then one could say you
have the time and effort to run
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
Hi,
As far as the saying goes : divide to conquer !
Best regards.
> Le 29 juin 2018 à 23:28, Rolf Hanßen a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> started with a "everything configured separately" network (on
> Cisco/Quagga) but now I prefer both together in one group (started with it
> during a vendor
Hi,
started with a "everything configured separately" network (on
Cisco/Quagga) but now I prefer both together in one group (started with it
during a vendor replacement (Cisco to Juniper) and new config from scratch
2 years ago).
Because it is easier to handle (shut only one group, do not forget
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Rob Foehl wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Job Snijders wrote:
>
>> For the purpose of inter-domain routing I'd advise against mixing warm
>> mayonnaise and jagermeister. uh.. i mean IPv4 and IPv6.
>>
>> Keeping things separate maybe makes debugging easier.
>
>
> I
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Mark Tinka wrote:
I prefer not to find out whether walking on hot coal will kill all
feeling in my feet, or just numb them for 2hrs :-).
So... Is that a vote for or against, and which one? ;)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Job Snijders wrote:
For the purpose of inter-domain
For the purpose of inter-domain routing I'd advise against mixing warm
mayonnaise and jagermeister. uh.. i mean IPv4 and IPv6.
Keeping things separate maybe makes debugging easier.
Kind regards,
Job
___
juniper-nsp mailing list
On 29/Jun/18 17:01, 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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
