You should accept the full v6 table, because some IPs may not, currently, be reachable via one of the carriers.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM, -Hammer- <bhmc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 surf IPv6. > > Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. > > > > > -Hammer- > > "I was a normal American nerd" > -Jack Herer > > >
