bgp for ipv6 question
Hi all Can I know how many ipv6 full bgp table routes now? how many memory can run one ipv6 full bgp table? how many peer for ipv6 in Router reflector you suggest? Do you suggest to separate the ipv4 and ipv6 in router reflector? Thank you for your info
On Feb 14, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Deric Kwok <deric.kwok2000@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all
Can I know how many ipv6 full bgp table routes now?
Right now there are about 15k routes.
how many memory can run one ipv6 full bgp table?
This depends on the platform.
how many peer for ipv6 in Router reflector you suggest?
This depends on your architecture.
Do you suggest to separate the ipv4 and ipv6 in router reflector?
I recommend keeping your network as congruent between IPv4 and IPv6 as possible, with dual-stack. - Jared
Can I know how many ipv6 full bgp table routes now?
Right now there are about 15k routes.
8k when you filter based on IRR. -- //fredan The Last Mile Cache - http://tlmc.fredan.se
Not based of IRR =D Foundry CER2K 12111 BGP Number of Neighbors Configured: 7, UP: 5 Number of Routes Installed: 22866, Uses 1966476 bytes Number of Routes Advertising to All Neighbors: 53961 (41844 entries), Uses 2008512 bytes Number of Attribute Entries Installed: 22746, Uses 2047140 bytes Number of Neighbors Configured: 6, UP: 5 Number of Routes Installed: 40326, Uses 3468036 bytes Number of Routes Advertising to All Neighbors: 34987 (34987 entries), Uses 1679376 bytes Number of Attribute Entries Installed: 31290, Uses 2816100 bytes ----- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 02/14/13 08:19, fredrik danerklint wrote:
Can I know how many ipv6 full bgp table routes now?
Right now there are about 15k routes.
8k when you filter based on IRR.
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 08:08 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
I recommend keeping your network as congruent between IPv4 and IPv6 as possible, with dual-stack.
Why? Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://www.biplane.com.au/blog GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:58 , Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 08:08 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
I recommend keeping your network as congruent between IPv4 and IPv6 as possible, with dual-stack.
Why?
For one thing, doing otherwise violates the principle of least astonishment. Other reasons include simplified network diagrams, improved reliability, easier troubleshooting, reduced complexity, and often lower costs of operations. Owen
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:18:24 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:58 , Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 08:08 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
I recommend keeping your network as congruent between IPv4 and IPv6 as possible, with dual-stack. Why? For one thing, doing otherwise violates the principle of least astonishment.
Amen to that. Not too long ago, I blew about 3 hours trying to debug an odd networking issue on my laptop - finally tracked it down to the fact that my IPv4 default route was pointing out the ethernet on the docking station, but IPv6 was defaulting to the wireless card. Took a while because I knew *damned* well that Fedora had long ago included my patch to allow specifying a preference metric for multiple interfaces, and that I had set it to prefer the ethernet when both were connected. Turns out that the patch worked just fine for v4, but nobody ever carried it forward for v6.... (I probably should cook up a patch for the v6 side.. :)
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 07:58:10AM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 08:08 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
I recommend keeping your network as congruent between IPv4 and IPv6 as possible, with dual-stack.
Why?
I asked a similar question a few years ago: http://seclists.org/nanog/2007/Aug/653 Most of the answers came back along the lines of "keep your routing boundaries congruent." Doing so makes documentation and troubleshooting simpler -- having non-congruent boundaries is more complex and error prone. However, if a network you're running calls for non-congruency -- go for it! Just be cognizant of the trade offs.
Hi, On Feb 14, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Deric Kwok <deric.kwok2000@gmail.com> wrote:
Can I know how many ipv6 full bgp table routes now?
Here are various sources to discover the size of the IPv6 internet routing table: http://public01.infra.ring.nlnog.net/munin/infra.ring.nlnog.net/lg01.infra.r... http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html http://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as6447/ Kind regards, Job
participants (9)
-
Alain Hebert -
Deric Kwok -
fredrik danerklint -
Jared Mauch -
Job Snijders -
John Osmon -
Karl Auer -
Owen DeLong -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu