IPv6 Deployment / Dual-Satck

[Ahmed Erfan Mehdi]

  Hello Friends,        

I hope you are doing great.

I am working on IPv6 deployment.

i am trying to configure my PE as a dual-stack toward CE, i have already establish EBGPv4 session with my customer.both PE end CE are dual-stack

I have set ipv4 and ipv6 address on the interface( directly connected to CE ).

i enabled ipv6 unicast-routing

i enabled  mls ipv6 vrf

I enabled vrf and upgrade to vrf-cli

i have tried with 6PE and 6VPE but i was failed.

So, here are my questions:

1- if PE and CE are dual-stack, so  i have to use 6VPE, right ? at CE side what is the required configuration ?

2- IOS version is 12.2(33) SRD3 - 7606- SUP720 , is it supported for Dual-Stack ?

3- at PE toward CE, shall i configure address-family ipv6 or vpn ipv6 or ipv6 vrf  ? at CE only ipv6 ?

4- my Topology is like this CE-------PE-----IGW .....Would you please guide me in that ..

=====================================

At PE:

===============================

vrf definition IPv6

rd 6500:1

!

address-family ipv4

route-target export 6500:1

route-target import 6500:1

exit-address-family

!

address-family ipv6

route-target export 6500:1

route-target import 6500:1

exit-address-family

=========================

interface GigabitEthernet1/18

description IPv6-test

vrf forwarding IPv6

ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0

ipv6 address 2A03:4700::FFFF:0:1/64

==================================

router bgp 6501

neighbor 10.10.10.2 remote-as 6500

neighbor 10.10.10.2 update-source GigabitEthernet1/18

neighbor 2A03:4700::FFFF:0:2 remote-as 6500

neighbor 2A03:4700::FFFF:0:2 update-source GigabitEthernet1/18

address-family ipv4 vrf IPv6

  no synchronization

  neighbor 10.10.10.2 remote-as 6500

  neighbor 10.10.10.2 activate

exit-address-family

!

address-family ipv6 vrf IPv6

  no synchronization

  neighbor 2A03:4700::FFFF:0:2 remote-as 6500

  neighbor 2A03:4700::FFFF:0:2 activate

exit-address-family

==============

Thanks

[Harold Ritter]

Hi Ahmed,

You do not need to run IPv6 natively between RR and IGW but if you do, you will not need send-label for that perticular session. It is better to go native ipv6 if you can. 6PE was developped to offer ipv6 over infrastructures that do not support it but if you core devices support ipv6 natively, might as well go native.

Regards

[Ahmed Erfan Mehdi]

Hello Harold,

Thanks for your reply.

I am not going for native IPv6, i want to keep  Core IPv6 unaware.

So you suggest to consider IGW as a PE and establish MP-BGP with RR ?

My IGW is 12000 IOS-XR , for send-label command will be same ?

My IGW is not included in MPLS domain, what shall i do ?

I will establish EBGP session with my UP Links to receive Full BGP IPv6 table, this table should be transported to RR by exsiting link ( directly connected ), no way without MP-BGP right ? enable MPLS also ?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Regards,

Ahmed

[Harold Ritter]

Hi Ahmed,

If you want to keep your core IPv6 unaware, the easiest would be to enable MPLS on the IGW and run 6PE between IGW and RR as well. The send-label would need to be used on that session as well in order to enable 6PE.

Regards

[Ahmed Erfan Mehdi]

Hello Harold,

Thanks for your reply.

address-family ipv6 labeled-unicast this will be used on IOS-XR ?

I am agree with you, but if RR-IGW is directly connected, routing protocola are OSPFv2 & iBGP, is it okay without enable MPLS and MP-BGP in this case, i am still confused about it !!!

Can we consider IGW as a CE ( this CE will send me Full BGP table ) , i am not sure what i am saying but it just idea !!!

BGP can carry IPv4 + IPv6

Interface between RR-IGW will be dual-stack ( IPv4 + IPv6 ) , under address-family ipv4 ( IPv4 address ) and under adress-family IPv6 ( IPv6 address ).

Thanks

[Harold Ritter]

Hi Ahmed,

It depends whether you want to enable IPv6 on the RR or not. Even if you do, IGW can not really be considered a CE as it will be in the same AS from a BGP standpoint. The easiest thing would be to not enable IPv6 on the RR and use IGW as the PE for 6PE. And yes, ipv6 labeled-unicast would be the AF to use on XR.

Regards

[Ahmed Erfan Mehdi]

Hello Harold,

1- for 6PE, my IGW should be MPLS speaker nad establish MP-BGP with RR , right ? any other solution ?

2- my IGW is :

RP/0/1/CPU0:IGW-DUHOK#sh version

Cisco IOS XR Software, Version 3.9.2[Default]

ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.0(20100127:230559) [skumarss-33s 1.24] RELEASE SOFTWARE

Copyright (c) 1994-2010 by cisco Systems,  Inc.

IGW-DUHOK uptime is 1 year, 34 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 37 minutes

System image file is "disk0:c12k-os-mbi-3.9.2.CSCtq14408-1.0.0/mbiprp-rp.vm"

cisco 12404/PRP (7457) processor with 2097152K bytes of memory.

7457 processor at 1266Mhz, Revision 1.2

2 Cisco 12000 Series Performance Route Processors

2 Cisco 12000 Series SPA Interface Processor-601/501/401

6 Management Ethernet

8 PLIM_QOS

3 TenGigE

2 SONET/SDH

2 Packet over SONET/SDH

1018k bytes of non-volatile configuration memory.

2052768k bytes of disk0: (Sector size 512 bytes).

65536k bytes of Flash internal SIMM (Sector size 256k).

Is it okay for IGW as memory and CPU to have ( 2 full BGP IPv4 + 2 full BGP IPv6 routes ) ?

3- community & route-map & prefix-list will be same as IPv4 format ?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Regards,

Ahmed

[Ahmed Erfan Mehdi]

Hello Harold,

Would you please update me on above questions.

Regards,

Ahmed

[Harold Ritter]

Hi Ahmed,

Sorry for the delay but I was away from the office for a while.

1- That is correct. The other solution would be for it to be a CE but then you would need some other router to be its PE.

2- This does not appear to be a problem.

3- Everything should be pretty similar. Prefix-lists will be for ipv6 prefixes obviously.

Regards