[j-nsp] Q re: 6PE on a native IPv6 enabled network

[Dan Peachey]

On 11 January 2016 at 18:53, Michael Hare <michael.hare at wisc.edu> wrote:

> j-nsp,
>
> I'd to deploy 6PE on an existing dual stack network so that native IPv6
> prefixes can take advantage of path benefits MPLS has to offer.  In my
> setup it seems that traffic from PE1 to PE2 [PE2 router id: x.x.32.8] is
> being load balanced between MPLS and native IPv6, showing equal cost
> protocol next hops of ::ffff:x.x.32.8 and y:y:0:100::8.
>
> If I want to force all v6 traffic into MPLS, is the only solution to
> disable native family inet6 iBGP between PE and RR, or is there a way to
> make the native IPv6 protocol next hop less preferable in some way?
>
> -Michael
>
> /////////////////
>
> Please note equal cost path to z:z::/32 which is learned from CE on PE2.
>
> user at PE1-re0> show route z:z:: active-path
>
> inet6.0: 213 destinations, 287 routes (213 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
> + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
>
> z:z::/32     *[BGP/170] 6d 06:17:47, MED 0, localpref 2020, from
> y:y:0:100::a
>                       AS path: 46103 I, validation-state: unverified
>                       to x.x.33.123 via ae0.3449, Push 301680
>                       to x.x.33.130 via ae2.3459, Push 315408
>                     > to fe80::86b5:9c0d:790d:d7f0 via ae0.3449
>                       to fe80::86b5:9c0d:8393:d92a via ae2.3459
>
> user at PE1-re0> show route z:z:: active-path detail
>
> inet6.0: 213 destinations, 287 routes (213 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
> z:z::/32 (5 entries, 1 announced)
>         *BGP    Preference: 170/-2021
>                 Next hop type: Indirect
>                 Address: 0x3574754
>                 Next-hop reference count: 6
>                 Source: y:y:0:100::a
>                 Next hop type: Router, Next hop index: 1048816
>                 Next hop: x.x.33.123 via ae0.3449 weight 0x1
>                 Label operation: Push 301680
>                 Label TTL action: prop-ttl
>                 Load balance label: Label 301680: None;
>                 Session Id: 0x151
>                 Next hop: x.x.33.130 via ae2.3459 weight 0xf000
>                 Label operation: Push 315408
>                 Label TTL action: prop-ttl
>                 Load balance label: Label 315408: None;
>                 Session Id: 0x14f
>                 Next hop type: Router, Next hop index: 1048583
>                 Next hop: fe80::86b5:9c0d:790d:d7f0 via ae0.3449 weight
> 0x1, selected
>                 Session Id: 0x14b
>                 Next hop: fe80::86b5:9c0d:8393:d92a via ae2.3459 weight
> 0xf000
>                 Session Id: 0x143
>                 Protocol next hop: ::ffff:x.x.32.8
>                 Indirect next hop: 0x358f478 1048718 INH Session ID: 0x1e7
>                 Protocol next hop: y:y:0:100::8
>                 Indirect next hop: 0x35d8b68 1048578 INH Session ID: 0x14e
>                 State: <Active Int Ext>
>                 Local AS: 65400 Peer AS: 65400
>                 Age: 6d 6:17:39         Metric: 0       Metric2: 2055
>                 Validation State: unverified
>                 Task: BGP_65400.y:y:0:100::a+179
>                 Announcement bits (3): 0-KRT 2-RT 6-Resolve tree 2
> ...
> ...
>

Hi,

Can you post your BGP and MPLS config? It works OK in my lab (labelled
route preferred over un-labelled route).

Cheers,

Dan