IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4

John van Oppen john at vanoppen.com
Mon Aug 27 20:08:15 UTC 2007

We did the same thing...   It seems easiest from a management
perspective to copy the ipv4 logical layer with v6.   The only change on
our side was the fixed prefix length which if anything was a nice

We did run into a few devices (old layer 3 switches) that don't support
ipv6 and on those we either did not deploy IPv6 or moved the routing off
for both v4 and v6 to the nearest "core" router that could handle v6 for
any vlans that required the v6 capability.

John van Oppen
Spectrum Networks LLC
206.973.8302 (Direct)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:25 AM
To: John Osmon
Cc: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: IPv6 network boundaries vs. IPv4

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:56:29 MDT, John Osmon said:
> Is anyone out there setting up routing boundaries differently for
> IPv4 and IPv6?  I'm setting up a network where it seems to make
> sense to route IPv4, while bridging IPv6 -- but I can be talked
> out of it rather easily.

We decided to map our IPv6 subnets one-to-one to our IPv4, so each of
routed /22 to /27 subnets gets a /64 IPv6 prefix.  This however was just
due to the fact that our topology permitted that - your mileage may

More information about the NANOG mailing list