[j-nsp] Mixing v4/v6 neighbors in BGP groups

["Rolf Hanßen"]

Hi,

started with a "everything configured separately" network (on
Cisco/Quagga) but now I prefer both together in one group (started with it
during a vendor replacement (Cisco to Juniper) and new config from scratch
2 years ago).

Because it is easier to handle (shut only one group, do not forget that
there may be somebody really using IPv6 you forget to shutdown).
Because it makes sure both have the same routing policies (I don't want
them to behave different).
Because it reduces the config size (we do not have hundreds of routers
deployed by some scripts).

I set families and source address (if using loopback) with an apply-group:
set groups blablabla protocols bgp group <*> neighbor <*:*> local-address ...
set groups blablabla protocols bgp group <*> neighbor <*:*> family inet6
unicast

In case I need some v4/v6 sepcific stuff in a policy I create 2 terms in
one policy.

but that's more like "do you prefer vanilla or chocolate ?" than an
essential question.

kind regards
Rolf

PS: Would be great if Juniper would allow both families together in a
single route-filter.

> Wondering aloud a bit...  I've seen plenty of cases where wedging parallel
> v4/v6 sessions into the same BGP group and letting the router sort out
> which AFI it's supposed to be using on each session works fine, and nearly
> as many where configuring anything family-specific starts to get ugly
> without splitting them into separate v4/v6 groups.  Are there any
> particularly compelling reasons to prefer one over the other?
>
> I can think of a bunch of reasons for and against on both sides, and
> several ways to handle it with apply-groups or commit scripts.  Curious
> what others are doing here.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Rob
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>