[c-nsp] ME3600 BGP Route-Maps and IPv6 (WAS: Re: preference on bgp route advertisements)

[Mark Tinka]

On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 04:29:45 PM Reuben Farrelly 
wrote:

> WTF?  The IPv6 prefix has been matched by the IPv4
> specific route-map sequence 10, and the community from
> that route map of 38858:2504 'set' on the router. It
> should be falling through to sequence 100 on account of
> a no-match on sequence 10, I thought.  I mean it's not
> even the same friggin protocol...
> 
> (And no, there's no IPv6 prefix lists defined at all,
> anywhere, on that switch)

Interesting.

Well, that's one of the reasons we use dedicated routing 
policies for both IPv4 and IPv6, including different route-
map names as well, to avoid potential issues such as these 
(unintended or otherwise).

Have you tested whether having a dedicated route-map for the 
IPv6 session works around this problem?

Then again, IPv6 on the ME3600X is still new. I'm happy to 
report that the bug which causes application of an egress 
IPv4 ACL to block all IPv6 traffic on a dual-stack interface 
has been identified and fixed in the next maintenance 
release, but can't say for sure whether the issue you're 
facing is in that list.

But very good thing you've reported it. Thanks for sharing 
the SR number.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20120306/0a9c0a9b/attachment.sig>