IPv6 dual stacking and route tables
bhmccie at gmail.com
Fri Feb 3 21:04:18 UTC 2012
OK. Looking forward to getting the lab up. Since I can handle the volume
I'll take both tables. At least in the lab. Looking forward to doing
some experiments with DNS just to see what all the fuss is about. Looks
like I'll need to order a Mac for the lab. No harm there. :)
"I was a normal American nerd"
On 2/3/2012 2:47 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2012-02-03 21:37 , -Hammer- wrote:
>> Thanks Jeroen (and Ryan/Philip/Cameron/Justin/Etc.) for all the online
>> and offline responses. That was fast. The struggle is that I'm having
>> trouble seeing how/why it would matter other than potential latency on
>> the IPv4 side. IPv6 conversations usually involve taking the full table
>> when dealing with multi-homed/multi-site setups. IPv4 I didn't really
>> consider (taking the full table) until I mentioned this to some of my
>> vendors technical folks and it caused a lot of reflection. Not on the L3
>> part. Just on the DNS part. This appears to be a tough subject area when
>> it comes to V4/V6 deployment strategies. The bottom line is that I'll
>> take whatever the carrier feeds in V6. Just trying to see where I would
>> be missing out by not doing the same in V4. Again, I have the hardware
>> to support it and I really have no reason not to do it. I just want to
>> be able to justify to myself why I'm doing it.
> Why you want non-defaults in both IPv4 and IPv6:
> - more possible paths
> - less chances of blackholes.
> And of course, those paths will be more stable and you don't get
> hot-potato swapping between two defaults.
> And that in turn allows the Happy Eyeballs mechanisms to do their jobs
> much better as they keep a history per host or prefix, they assume IPv6
> /48's and IPv4 /24's from what I have seen, in some cases.
More information about the NANOG