> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:31:22 -0600 > From: Richard A Steenbergen <r...@e-gerbil.net> > Sender: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 07:22:21PM +0500, Muhammad Aamir wrote: > > Hi Experts, > > > > We are planning to go with IPv6; currently we have all Junipers in the > > Core. I just want to know does juniper supports all features related > > to IPv6. Anybody faced any problem while configuring IPv6 on their > > Juniper routers. Does JUNOS (version 9.4) have any bug related to > > IPv6? All comments are really appreciated. > > Well, that's a pretty non-specific question, but off the top of my head > I'd say that IPv6 works extremely well on Juniper with the following > caveats: > > * I've heard reports of issues load balancing IPv6 traffic over ae's on > older platforms (M20s and the like). I don't know exactly what platforms > are affected, but it seems likely that everything pre M320/T-series > would have the same issue. The older PFEs don't seem to be able to hash > on inet6 addresses, so all the v6 traffic from a single mac lands on a > single ae member. > > * Juniper does something weird with next-hop self, which causes a lot of > grief when you want to do ipv4/ipv6 dual stack. Basically the problems > is there isn't an "update-source <interface>" option like Cisco has, so > the next-hop self value is taken from the local address of the BGP > session rather than from any particular interface. So when you carry > ipv4+piv6 AFIs over a single IBGP session (using for example an IPv4 > address as transport), and you do a next-hop self, it sets the v6 > nexthop to ::i.p.v.4 rather than a proper v6 address. You can avoid > setting next-hop self in most cases, but it's pretty hard to avoid when > you're doing prefix origination. IMHO the easiest way to work around > this is just to make an ::i.p.v.4 alias on your lo0 and carry both > values in your IGP, but it's something to keep in mind. > > * IPv6 support is currently nonexistant on the EX8200-series platforms, > with varying dates mentioned for when it will finally be added (some of > the worst ones being 2011 :P). Why they even bothered shipping this box > without IPv6 support I can't imagine, but for whatever reason they did.
We just define our own policy to fake nexthop self: policy-statement set-nexthop-self { term IPv4 { from family inet; then { next-hop self; } } term IPv6 { from family inet6; then { next-hop (IPv6 loopback address); } } } We've had no problems with doing this in our iBGP mesh which is dual-stack over IPv4. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp