Re: Quick IP6/BGP question
On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote: On 24/05/10 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? Most Internet Exchanges do not allow to mix on the same transport. So IPv4 peering over IPv4 transport, IPv6 peering over IPv6 transport, you can use the same interface though. Most Internet Exchanges don't care what BGP protocol options consenting neighbours decide to use, in my experience. (If they cared, what could they do?) Joe
Re: Quick IP6/BGP question
On May 26, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote: On 24/05/10 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? Most Internet Exchanges do not allow to mix on the same transport. So IPv4 peering over IPv4 transport, IPv6 peering over IPv6 transport, you can use the same interface though. Most Internet Exchanges don't care what BGP protocol options consenting neighbours decide to use, in my experience. (If they cared, what could they do?) Don't care? I think you mean don't know. The exchange that starts snooping my BGP session to see what I am trading with my peer is the exchange that will lose my business. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Quick IP6/BGP question
On 26/05/10 19:55, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On May 26, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote: On 24/05/10 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? Most Internet Exchanges do not allow to mix on the same transport. So IPv4 peering over IPv4 transport, IPv6 peering over IPv6 transport, you can use the same interface though. Most Internet Exchanges don't care what BGP protocol options consenting neighbours decide to use, in my experience. (If they cared, what could they do?) Don't care? I think you mean don't know. The exchange that starts snooping my BGP session to see what I am trading with my peer is the exchange that will lose my business. Ok, let's clarify, what I was on about: I was talking about the peering sessions to the route-servers. What the IXP members do peering wise between themselves is hardly enforced. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen -- Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair http://www.airwire.ie Phone: 091-865 968
Re: Quick IP6/BGP question
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:21:45 -0700 From: Thomas Magill tmag...@providecommerce.com 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? Can't speak for most of us, but we run an iBGP v4 mesh carrying both v4 and v6 routes. For external peers, we run separate peerings. -- 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
Re: Quick IP6/BGP question
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:21:45AM -0700, 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? I've never liked how you have to configure ::w.x.y.z/96 style IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses in order to use IPv6 NLRIs with IPv4 BGP sessions, so I've always used separate native IPv6 sessions.
Re: Quick IP6/BGP question
At Hurricane, most of our IPv6 peerings are exchanging over IPv6 addresses. In general, most routers work better if you run IPv4 peering on IPv4 and IPv6 peering on IPv6. In many cases, this is because the configuration files are less confusing more than any underlying dependency in the router OS. YMMV, but, my recommendation is to peer v6 on v6 and v4 o v4. Owen On May 24, 2010, at 11:21 AM, 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? Thomas Magill Network Engineer Office: (858) 909-3777 Cell: (858) 869-9685 mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com provide-commerce 4840 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 ProFlowers http://www.proflowers.com/ | redENVELOPE http://www.redenvelope.com/ | Cherry Moon Farms http://www.cherrymoonfarms.com/ | Shari's Berries http://www.berries.com/
RE: Quick IP6/BGP question
Thanks (to you and everyone else that answered before). It sounds like everyone is in agreement. I mostly ask because a customer of mine is considering venturing into the ISP business and expressed interest in offering IP6. If that is the case, I want to do it correctly from the start. -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:30 AM To: Thomas Magill Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Quick IP6/BGP question At Hurricane, most of our IPv6 peerings are exchanging over IPv6 addresses. In general, most routers work better if you run IPv4 peering on IPv4 and IPv6 peering on IPv6. In many cases, this is because the configuration files are less confusing more than any underlying dependency in the router OS. YMMV, but, my recommendation is to peer v6 on v6 and v4 o v4. Owen On May 24, 2010, at 11:21 AM, 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? Thomas Magill Network Engineer Office: (858) 909-3777 Cell: (858) 869-9685 mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com provide-commerce 4840 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 ProFlowers http://www.proflowers.com/ | redENVELOPE http://www.redenvelope.com/ | Cherry Moon Farms http://www.cherrymoonfarms.com/ | Shari's Berries http://www.berries.com/
RE: Quick IP6/BGP question
We've done it both ways. We've found that there are sometimes issues with announcing IPv6 NLRI over IPv4 BGP sessions depending on your chosen vendor and code version on both sides of the session. Specifically, we have seen some implementations where an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address (usually the IPv4 router-id or neighbor address) is announced as the next-hop, or a link-local address is used as the next-hop, or some random junk is announced as the next-hop, even with next-hop-self configured. All of these result in the receiving router dropping the announcements because it doesn't have a route to the next-hop. It's usually possible to work around this by using route policies to force the correct next-hop to be written on in/outbound announcements, and as we find it working improperly, we've been reporting bugs, but I thought it would be worth bringing this up as a caveat so that you can make sure your hardware/software of choice is behaving properly if you choose to go this route. Also, I know of at least one vendor that didn't implement the converse functionality in CLI yet - it's impossible to configure an IPv6 neighbor address in the IPv4 address family in order to exchange IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 BGP session. Thanks, Wes George -Original Message- From: Thomas Magill [mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:22 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Quick IP6/BGP question 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? Thomas Magill Network Engineer Office: (858) 909-3777 Cell: (858) 869-9685 mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com mailto:tmag...@providecommerce.com provide-commerce 4840 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 ProFlowers http://www.proflowers.com/ | redENVELOPE http://www.redenvelope.com/ | Cherry Moon Farms http://www.cherrymoonfarms.com/ | Shari's Berries http://www.berries.com/ This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
Re: Quick IP6/BGP question
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
RE: Quick IP6/BGP question
On Mon, 24 May 2010, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: At the Seattle Internet Exchange we have both IPv4 and IPv6 peering, via discrete addresses, on the same interface. That's how we do it here as well. jms
