nanog mailing list archives
Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)
From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 16:07:05 -0600
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net> wrote:
On May 2, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Deepak Jain <deepak () 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 v4 transport for v4 routes and v6 transport for v6 routes only.
+1
This way if one plane is unstable the other is unaffected.
This is the key point I believe: No protocol fate sharing!
From the draft BCOP on this topic[1]:
----8<---- Establish new, IPv6-Only peering sessions parallel to existing IPv4 peering. Individual IPv4 and IPv6 BGP peering sessions should be established between all BGP neighbors, particularly eBGP peers. While it is possible to use Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP)[2] to carry IPv6 Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) over existing (or new) IPv4 BGP peering sessions, this is not recommended. Both BGP sessions MAY use the same logical circuit, or, a new port MAY be used for IPv6 (separate physical or logical connections is NOT a requirement). [removed image] This maintains independent IPv6 and IPv4 topologies, rather than tying the two together unnecessarily. It prevents black holing of IPv6 traffic in the event of a protocol outage because the IPv6 session goes down when IPv6 reachability is lost. When an IPv4 BGP session carries IPv6 NLRI, IPv6 routes are only withdrawn if IPv4 connectivity is lost. Independent BGP sessions also facilitate protocol specific maintenance because the IPv4 and IPv6 sessions don’t affect each other (e.g. IPv6 can be “bounced” without effecting IPv4 and vice verse). Finally, establishing new, IPv6-only peering creates better operational clarity. It allows IPv4 and IPv6 configuration stanzas to be independent and easily recognizable. ----8<---- Cheers, ~Chris [1] - http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/IPv6_Peering_Transit_BCOP_v0-6 [2] - Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, “Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4”, RFC 4760, January 2007
- Jared
-- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com
Current thread:
- Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Deepak Jain (May 02)
- Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Jared Mauch (May 02)
- Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Chris Grundemann (May 02)
- Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Laszlo Hanyecz (May 02)
- Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Ryan Wilkins (May 02)
- Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Måns Nilsson (May 02)
- Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Owen DeLong (May 02)
- Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Eugeniu Patrascu (May 02)
- Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Paul S. (May 02)
- RE: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Vitkovský Adam (May 03)
- RE: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Mikael Abrahamsson (May 03)
- Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Michael Hallgren (May 03)
- Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Mark Tinka (May 04)
- RE: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Mikael Abrahamsson (May 03)
(Thread continues...)
- Re: Best practices IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack) Jared Mauch (May 02)