[j-nsp] LSP's with IPV6 on Juniper

[craig washington]

No, there isn't a particular business problem or requirement.

When I set this up in the lab (logical systems) and followed the Juniper documentation for setting up 6PE the IPV6 prefixes didn't resolve to LSP's.

The documentation says to add labeled unicast with explicit null and tunneling.

I had 2 groups, one for v4 and one for v6. I added the commands to v4 group and didn't see a change.

I removed it all and tried adding it to v6 group and no change.

The only way I got it to work was with mpls tunneling for v6 and on the export policy for the v6 group I changed the next hop from self to the v4 address of the advertising PE.

A side note, I also got it to work by adding static routes to the inet6.3 table but that's not feasible.

It is entirely possible I did something wrong but I went back through and only saw those commands that were needed so I figured it had something to do with the CORE not being just IPv4 so that's why I just changed the next hop to the IPv4 address of the PE.

I am aware I can run multiple protocols but sometimes with my current employer a lot of things are rush jobs so I didn't want to roll out LDP.


Thanks again for taking time to read through all my convoluted babble 😊


________________________________
From: juniper-nsp <juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net> on behalf of Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 5:17 AM
To: Rob Foehl
Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] LSP's with IPV6 on Juniper



> On Aug 29, 2018, at 1:14 AM, Rob Foehl <rwf at loonybin.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018, adamv0025 at netconsultings.com wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiosity is there a business problem/requirement/limitation you're trying to solve by not changing the next hop to v6 mapped v4 address and using native v6 NHs instead please?
>
> I'd asked a similar question as the OP two weeks ago in the thread about mixing v4 and v6 in the same BGP peer groups, after several responses extolling the virtues of avoiding any conflation between the two.  If that's the case for routing, but forwarding v6 in an entirely v4-dependent manner on a 100% dual stack network is tolerable, then this inconsistency is... inconsistent.
>
> By all outward appearances, v6 is still a second class citizen when it comes to TE, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask why this is the way it is in 2018.  There are plenty of valid reasons for wanting parity.
>
>> On contrary 6PE/6VPE is such a well-trodden path.
>
> The world is covered with well-trodden paths that have fallen into disuse with the arrival of newer, better, more convenient infrastructure.
>

Yes, I’m always reminding folks that router-id may be well known to be the same integer representation of your IP address in the protocol encoding, but often it’s not a requirement.

I would like to see some of the gaps closed that prevent me from having an IPv6 loopback in my BGP OPEN message, but then again, I could just use the integer value of the serial number of my router instead.

- Jared

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
juniper-nsp Info Page - puck.nether.net<https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp>
puck.nether.net
To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the juniper-nsp Archives.. Using juniper-nsp: To post a message to all the list members, send email to juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net.