nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:36:50 -0800
On 2/8/12 08:59 , keith tokash wrote:
Hi,
I've done it either way, I prefer to put the v6 peers in a different group than the v4 peers so that I can group the policies at the group rather than neighbor level.
I'm prepping an environment for v6 and I'm wondering what, if any, benefit there is to splitting v4 and v6 into separate groups. We're running Junipers and things are fairly neat and ordered; we have multiple links to a few providers in many sites, so we group them and apply the policies at the group level. We could stick the new v6 neighbors into the same group and apply the policies at the neighbor level, or create new groups (i.e. Level3 and Level3v6). This might sound a little nit-picky, but I'm concerned that there's a nuance I'm not thinking of right now and I don't want to be "that guy" who puts something in place and is cursed for a decade. Thanks, Keith Tokash
Current thread:
- IPv6 explicit BGP group configs keith tokash (Feb 08)
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Leo Bicknell (Feb 08)
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Grzegorz Janoszka (Feb 08)
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Leo Bicknell (Feb 08)
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Joel jaeggli (Feb 08)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Aleksi Suhonen (Feb 12)
- Re: IPv6 explicit BGP group configs Owen DeLong (Feb 12)