> Regards,
>> Jordi
>>
>>
>> -Mensaje original-
>> De: NANOG en nombre de Brock Tice
>>
>> Responder a:
>> Fecha: viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2017, 17:14
>> Para: Fredrik Sallinen
>> CC:
>> Asunto: Re: IPv6 migration steps
n
CC:
Asunto: Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Fredrik Sallinen wrote:
> Please correct me If I'm wrong, AFAIK 464XLAT works best with mobile
> networks and its not suitable for fixed broadband. right?
It's most widely deploy
On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Fredrik Sallinen wrote:
Please correct me If I'm wrong, AFAIK 464XLAT works best with mobile
networks and its not suitable for fixed broadband. right?
It's most widely deployed in mobile networks, yes. There is nothing that
says it couldn't work anywhere else.
However,
s panel ASAP.
>
> So please, keep pushing your vendors for it!
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> -Mensaje original-
> De: NANOG en nombre de Brock Tice
> Responder a:
> Fecha: viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2017, 17:14
> Para: Fredrik Sallinen
> CC:
>
CPE's are owned by our customers but we have control over ~60% of them
using TR069.
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Max Tulyev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> for my point of view, the start question is do you control CPEs (can
> re-configure and re-flash it), or users buy and own CPEs themself?
>
> On 13
On 9/13/17, 8:08 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Fredrik Sallinen"
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Recently we have decided to start IPv6 migration in our network. We
>have ~1K BNGs and connecting our customers to network using PPPoE.
>I'd be interested in hearing from the technical community about their
>experience
Subject: Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp Date: Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at
12:04:45PM -0300 Quoting Owen DeLong (o...@delong.com):
> > iBGP is scalable, you can introduce router reflectors to avoid full mesh
> > peering between PE routers – and the sky if your limit!
>
>
> On Sep 17, 2017, at 5:14 AM, Ahad Aboss wrote:
>
> Hi Fredrik,
>
> Running two different IGPs for IPv4 and IPv6 is a recipe for disaster even
> if it’s a short-term goal.
>
> Here are a few things to consider;
>
> OSPF is good for small ISPs with small routing tables (10 to 15K routes).
> I
Hi Fredrik,
Running two different IGPs for IPv4 and IPv6 is a recipe for disaster even
if it’s a short-term goal.
Here are a few things to consider;
OSPF is good for small ISPs with small routing tables (10 to 15K routes).
It will support more routes but configuration of your network becomes mor
please, keep pushing your vendors for it!
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: NANOG en nombre de Brock Tice
Responder a:
Fecha: viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2017, 17:14
Para: Fredrik Sallinen
CC:
Asunto: Re: IPv6 migration steps for mid-scale isp
We are small but we are just
Hello,
for my point of view, the start question is do you control CPEs (can
re-configure and re-flash it), or users buy and own CPEs themself?
On 13.09.17 15:08, Fredrik Sallinen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Recently we have decided to start IPv6 migration in our network. We
> have ~1K BNGs and connectin
16/09/2017 kl. 10.56 sth...@nethelp.no:
Yes, if you use OSPF for IPv4 you *have* to use something else for
IPv6. But if you already run IS-IS there is no reason to change, just
remember to enable multi-topology.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
We somehow manage to run jus
>
>
>
> Yes, if you use OSPF for IPv4 you *have* to use something else for
> IPv6. But if you already run IS-IS there is no reason to change, just
> remember to enable multi-topology.
Well... sort of.
The reality is that from a configuration and management perspective, there's
very little di
Le 16/09/2017 à 10:39, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> My advice is not to mix IGPs. If you are already running ISIS, then go for
> multi-topology and dual-stack it.
>
> I've done that several times, running different backbones, works like a
> charm. Less overhead as you'd only be run
> if IGP for IPv4 is IS-IS then use OSPFv3 for IPv6.
this is nuts. one is-is instance carries both
randy
> Thank you all for your Ideas. AFAIK one of the main decisions for IPv6
> transition and deployment is the choice of IPv6 IGP. I read somewhere
> that its a good practice to use different IGP protocol for IPv6 and
> IPv4. For example if IGP for IPv4 is IS-IS then use OSPFv3 for IPv6.
> any comment
Hi,
My advice is not to mix IGPs. If you are already running ISIS, then go for
multi-topology and dual-stack it.
I've done that several times, running different backbones, works like a charm.
Less overhead as you'd only be running one IGP.
My 2 cents.
> Le 16 sept. 2017 à 10:09, Fredrik Sal
Thank you all for your Ideas. AFAIK one of the main decisions for IPv6
transition and deployment is the choice of IPv6 IGP. I read somewhere
that its a good practice to use different IGP protocol for IPv6 and
IPv4. For example if IGP for IPv4 is IS-IS then use OSPFv3 for IPv6.
any comments on this?
We are small but we are just about out of IPv4 and aren't going to get
or buy any more. We have been testing for a while.
> Shall I go for IPv6-only deployment or dual stack?
You should plan for adding customers eventually that are IPv6-only,
unless you have all the v4 you will ever need, and you
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Fredrik Sallinen wrote:
Hello,
Recently we have decided to start IPv6 migration in our network. We
have ~1K BNGs and connecting our customers to network using PPPoE.
I'd be interested in hearing from the technical community about their
experiences and recommendations on thi
Hello,
Recently we have decided to start IPv6 migration in our network. We
have ~1K BNGs and connecting our customers to network using PPPoE.
I'd be interested in hearing from the technical community about their
experiences and recommendations on this process. I'm wondering:
Shall I go for IPv6-o
21 matches
Mail list logo
