[j-nsp] 6pe between Cisco and Juniper

[Olivier Benghozi]

No, the neighbor next-hop-self command doesn't have any impact on reflected routes. But I guess it would prevent IPv6 routes known from eBGP by the RR to be sent with an IPv6 NH as unlabeled (but maybe there are none?).
I wonder if BGP IPv6 routes in the RR, known with an IPv6 NH instead of an IPv4+label NH, could be the source of your problem ? In those conditions, maybe a generalized next-hop-self in your whole iBGP could be fine? Just thinking aloud, but it could make sense.


> and move all the traffic through RR? :)
> 
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Olivier Benghozi <olivier.benghozi at wifirst.fr> wrote:
> Maybe you could try to configure next-hop-self on the Cisco's side, on all AFI?
> 
> Le 4 sept. 2012 à 13:12, Mihai Gabriel a écrit :
> 
> > You are partially right. The bgp session is established without
> > inet6-unicast capability advertised by Juniper, but as soon as Juniper
> > receives an ipv6 prefix with a native ipv6 next-hop from Cisco, it will
> > immediately close the session .
> >
> > My Cisco router is a route reflector with a lot of clients and some of them
> > are advertising ipv6 prefixes with a native ipv6 next-hop and also ipv4
> > prefixes.In this setup,closing the session will affect all services..