,
Rajiv
On May 3, 2014, at 5:29 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
Subject: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices
IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Date: Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:58:42PM -0600
Quoting Chris Grundemann (cgrundem...@gmail.com):
Would you
Mark,
about leveraging SR to push native IPv6 support into MPLS,
Segment routing (SR) could/would certainly work with single-stack v6 and enable
MPLS forwarding.
Cheers,
Rajiv
On May 5, 2014, at 3:36 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Monday, May 05, 2014 09:27:37 AM
On Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:27:09 AM Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
wrote:
Segment routing (SR) could/would certainly work with
single-stack v6 and enable MPLS forwarding.
Certainly, but based on the Paris meeting, it was not high
up on the agenda.
So we will, likely, have to rely on other solutions
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
On Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:27:09 AM Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
wrote:
Segment routing (SR) could/would certainly work with single-stack v6
and enable MPLS forwarding.
Certainly, but based on the Paris meeting, it was not high up on the
Ideally, we would have a solution where an entire MPLS infrastructure
could be built without v4 space, demoting
v4 to a legacy application inside a VRF, but the MPLS standards wg
seems content with status quo.
There is work ongoing in the MPLS IETF WG on identifying the gaps that
On Monday, May 05, 2014 09:27:37 AM Vitkovský Adam wrote:
You mean the SR right?
No, I mean:
draft-george-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-05
The draft looks at issues that need to be fixed for MPLS to
run in a single-stack IPv6 network.
Of course, there is other work that is looking at fixing
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com writes:
Ah, so you're in the camp that a /10 given to one organization for
their private use would have been better than reserving that /10 for
_everyone_ to use. We'll have to agree to disagree there.
you forced an rfc allocation. that makes public space, and is
On Saturday, May 03, 2014 11:26:27 AM Måns Nilsson wrote:
Ideally, we would have a solution where an entire MPLS
infrastructure could be built without v4 space, demoting
v4 to a legacy application inside a VRF, but the MPLS
standards wg seems content with status quo.
There is work ongoing in
On Saturday, May 03, 2014 08:23:43 PM Mikael Abrahamsson
wrote:
I know lots of people who run vpnv4 separately from ipv4
and ipv6 (so they have 3 sessions). The ones I talked to
intends to run vpnv6 separately as well.
Except that VPNv6, today, relies on MPLSv4. So it's not
pure yet.
Mark.
On Saturday, May 03, 2014 07:24:24 PM Vitkovský Adam wrote:
Sure it's a different transport protocol altogether,
anyways It's interesting to see how everybody tends to
separate the IPv4 and IPv6 AFs onto a different TCP
sessions and still run the plethora of other AFs on the
common v4 TCP
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Between peering routers on a dual-stacked network, is it considered best
practices to have two BGP sessions (one for v4 and one for v6) between
them? Or is it better to put v4 in the v6 session or v6 in the v4 session?
As precaution, you should always deny ipv6 unicast on v4 sessions, and
vice versa.
On 5/3/2014 午後 03:01, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Between peering routers on a dual-stacked network, is it considered best
practices to have two
Subject: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices
IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Date: Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:58:42PM -0600 Quoting
Chris Grundemann (cgrundem...@gmail.com):
Would you expound a bit on what you mean here? I don't quite follow but I
am very interested
a good number of us use that kinky /10 behind home nats and encourage
everyone to do so. it was a sick deal and should be treated as such,
just more 1918.
randy
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
The fact that you need v4 space to build a MPLS backbone is a very good
reason to not waste a /10 on CGN crap.
Ah, so you're in the camp that a /10 given to one organization for
their private use would have been
Sure it's a different transport protocol altogether, anyways It's interesting
to see how everybody tends to separate the IPv4 and IPv6 AFs onto a different
TCP sessions and still run the plethora of other AFs on the common v4 TCP
session, maybe apart from couple of the big folks, who can afford
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
a good number of us use that kinky /10 behind home nats and encourage
everyone to do so. it was a sick deal and should be treated as such,
just more 1918.
A good number of folks use other folks IP space in all kinds of
strange
On Sat, 3 May 2014, Vitkovský Adam wrote:
Sure it's a different transport protocol altogether, anyways It's
interesting to see how everybody tends to separate the IPv4 and IPv6 AFs
onto a different TCP sessions and still run the plethora of other AFs on
the common v4 TCP session, maybe apart
On 5/3/14, 10:36 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
a good number of us use that kinky /10 behind home nats and encourage
everyone to do so. it was a sick deal and should be treated as such,
just more 1918.
A good number of folks use
Le 03/05/2014 20:23, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Sat, 3 May 2014, Vitkovský Adam wrote:
Sure it's a different transport protocol altogether, anyways It's
interesting to see how everybody tends to separate the IPv4 and IPv6
AFs onto a different TCP sessions and still run the plethora of
Ah, so you're in the camp that a /10 given to one organization for
their private use would have been better than reserving that /10 for
_everyone_ to use. We'll have to agree to disagree there.
you forced an rfc allocation. that makes public space, and is and will
be used as such. you wanted
Between peering routers on a dual-stacked network, is it considered best
practices to have two BGP sessions (one for v4 and one for v6) between them? Or
is it better to put v4 in the v6 session or v6 in the v4 session?
According to docs, obviously all of these are supported and if both sides
On May 2, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Between peering routers on a dual-stacked network, is it considered best
practices to have two BGP sessions (one for v4 and one for v6) between them?
Or is it better to put v4 in the v6 session or v6 in the v4 session?
We use
Two different sessions using two different transport protocols. The v4 BGP
session should have address family v6 disabled and vice versa. Exchange v4
routes over a v4 TCP connection, exchange v6 routes over a v6 TCP connection.
Just treat them as independent protocols.
-Laszlo
On May 2,
Between peering routers on a dual-stacked network, is it considered best
practices to have two BGP sessions (one for v4 and one for v6) between them?
Or is it better to put v4 in the v6 session or v6 in the v4 session?
According to docs, obviously all of these are supported and if both
Subject: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Date: Fri, May 02, 2014 at
07:44:33PM + Quoting Deepak Jain (dee...@ai.net):
Between peering routers on a dual-stacked network, is it considered best
practices to have two BGP sessions (one for v4 and one for v6) between them
Hi Mans,
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.orgwrote:
This is a field where v4 next-hops are essential to make things
work. rantIn that context, allocating 100.64.0.0/10 to CGN was
especially un-clever... /rant
Would you expound a bit on what you mean here? I
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On May 2, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Between peering routers on a dual-stacked network, is it considered best
practices to have two BGP sessions (one for v4 and one for v6) between
them?
On May 2, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net wrote:
Between peering routers on a dual-stacked network, is it considered best
practices to have two BGP sessions (one for v4 and one for v6) between them?
Or is it better to put v4 in the v6 session or v6 in the v4 session?
29 matches
Mail list logo
