[c-nsp] IPv6: Getting started

[Phil Mayers]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 08:58:09PM +0000, Peter Rathlev wrote:
>
>Q: IPv6 auto-configuration on p-t-p core links: Good or bad idea? I
>guess the downside is comparable to using RFC1918 addresses on Internet
>core router's interfaces, where e.g. traces break.

Every ipv6 link has a link-local configured with SLAAC. I don't think 
this is what you mean though?

>
>Q: We run an MPLS VPN network, global routing only used for management.
>According to this document (which should also cover 12.2SX):
>
>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6-ov_mpls_6vpe.html#wp1054029
>
>> 6VPE supports an MPLS IPv4-signaled core. An MPLS IPv6-signaled core
>> is not supported.
>
>We have to keep an IPv4 core then? I guess the important part is to
>enable IPv6 for the users and services, but (excuse my french) it seems
>a little half-assed to not support an IPv6 core. Especially MPLS being
>what it is.

You can *run* IPv6 in the default VRF; you just can't do LDP over ipv6, 
or transport vpnv4/vpnv6 over ipv6 BGP peerings.

>
>Q: Should our initial "test phase" with IPv6 be accomplished using
>FE00::/7 local addresses (as per RFC 4193), or should we just aim at
>starting out with globally unique addresses? (I assume they're almost
>trivial to apply for and have allocated.)

Go for real space.

>Q: We almost only use 6500/Sup720 (12.2(33)SXI) and 3560/3750
>(12.2(5n)SEn). According to Cisco's IPv6 technology white paper
>
>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/technologies/collateral/tk648/tk872/tk373/technologies_white_paper_09186a00802219bc.html
>
>we should be okay. Are all relevant management stuff IPv6-ready? TACACS
>+, NetFlow (C6k FTW!), SSH, syslog, SNMPv3 et cetera.

Much of it will *handle* IPv6 but not run over it e.g. I don't think you 
can export netflow over v6, but you will see v6 flows.

SNMP & SSH will accept v6 PDUs.

There isn't 100% parity, but it's improving.