nanog mailing list archives
Re: Quick IP6/BGP question
From: Andy Davidson <andy () nosignal org>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 19:50:58 +0100
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
Current thread:
- Quick IP6/BGP question Thomas Magill (May 24)
- Re: Quick IP6/BGP question Kevin Oberman (May 24)
- RE: Quick IP6/BGP question Michael K. Smith - Adhost (May 24)
- RE: Quick IP6/BGP question Justin M. Streiner (May 24)
- Re: Quick IP6/BGP question Chuck Anderson (May 24)
- Re: Quick IP6/BGP question Owen DeLong (May 24)
- RE: Quick IP6/BGP question Thomas Magill (May 24)
- RE: Quick IP6/BGP question George, Wes E IV [NTK] (May 24)
- Re: Quick IP6/BGP question Andy Davidson (May 24)
- Re: Quick IP6/BGP question Seth Mattinen (May 24)
- Re: Quick IP6/BGP question Martin List-Petersen (May 25)
- Re: Quick IP6/BGP question Joe Abley (May 26)
- Re: Quick IP6/BGP question Patrick W. Gilmore (May 26)
- Re: Quick IP6/BGP question Martin List-Petersen (May 26)
- Re: Quick IP6/BGP question Joe Abley (May 26)