mailing list archives
IPv6 dual stacking and route tables
From: -Hammer- <bhmccie () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:10:00 -0600
So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers
and carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of
course. Circuits and hardware are a few months away. I'm doing the
initial designs and having some delivery questions with the carrier(s).
One interesting question came up. There was a thread I found (and have
since lost) regarding what routes to accept. Currently, in IPv4, we
accept a default route only from both carriers at both sites. Works
fine. Optimal? No. Significantly negative impact? No. In IPv6, I have
heard some folks say that in a multi-homed environment it is better to
get the full IPv6 table fed into both of your edge routers. Ok. Fine.
Then, The thread I was referring to said that it is also advisable to
have the entire IPv4 table fed in parallel. Ok. I understand we are
talking about completely separate protocols. So it's not a layer 3
issue. The reasoning was that DNS could potentially introduce some latency.
"If you have a specific route to a AAAA record but a less specific route
to an A record the potential is for the trip to take longer."
That was the premise of the thread. I swear I googled it for 20 minutes
to link before giving up. Anyway, can anyone who's been thru this
provide any opinions on why or why not it is important to accept the
full IPv6 table AND the full IPv4 table? I have the hardware to handle
it I'm just not sure long term what the reasoning would be for or
against. Again, I'm an end customer. Not a carrier. So my concern is (A)
my Internet facing applications and (B) my users who eventually will
Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks.
"I was a normal American nerd"