- •Contents
- •List of Figures
- •List of Tables
- •About the Author
- •Acknowledgements
- •Abbreviations
- •Introduction
- •1 Hardware Design
- •1.1 Separation of Routing and Forwarding Functionality
- •1.2 Building Blocks
- •1.2.1 Control Module
- •1.2.2 Forwarding Module
- •1.2.4 Stateful Failover
- •1.3 To Flow or Not to Flow?
- •1.4 Hardware Redundancy, Single Chassis or Multi Chassis
- •2 Transport Media
- •2.1 Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
- •2.1.1 Path MTU Discovery
- •2.1.2 Port Density
- •2.1.3 Channelized Interfaces
- •2.2 Ethernet
- •2.2.1 Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
- •2.3 Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)
- •2.4 Packet Over SONET (POS)
- •2.5.1 Intelligent Protection Switching
- •2.6 (Fractional) E1/T1/E3/T3
- •2.7 Wireless Transport
- •2.7.1 Regulatory Constraints
- •2.7.2 Interference
- •2.7.3 Obstructions
- •2.7.4 Atmospheric Conditions
- •3.1.1 Management Ethernet
- •3.1.2 Console Port
- •3.1.3 Auxiliary (Aux) Port
- •3.1.4 Remote Power Management
- •3.1.5 Uninterruptible Power Supplies (UPS)
- •3.2 Network Time Protocol (NTP)
- •3.3 Logging
- •3.4 Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
- •3.4.1 SNMPv1, v2c and v3
- •3.5 Remote Monitoring (RMON)
- •3.6 Network Management Systems
- •3.6.1 CiscoWorks
- •3.6.2 JUNOScope
- •3.7.1 Concurrent Version System (CVS)
- •3.8 To Upgrade or Not to Upgrade
- •3.8.1 Software Release Cycles
- •3.9 Capacity Planning Techniques
- •4 Network Security
- •4.1 Securing Access to Your Network Devices
- •4.1.1 Physical Security
- •4.1.2 Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA)
- •4.2 Securing Access to the Network Infrastructure
- •4.2.1 Authentication of Users, Hosts and Servers
- •4.2.2 Encryption of Information
- •4.2.3 Access Tools and Protocols
- •4.2.4 IP Security (IPsec)
- •4.2.5 Access Control Lists
- •4.2.6 RFC 1918 Addresses
- •4.2.7 Preventing and Tracing Denial of Service (DoS) Attacks
- •5 Routing Protocols
- •5.1 Why Different Routing Protocols?
- •5.2 Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP)
- •5.2.1 Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
- •5.2.2 Authentication of OSPF
- •5.2.3 Stub Areas, Not So Stubby Areas (NSSA) and Totally Stubby Areas
- •5.2.4 OSPF Graceful Restart
- •5.2.5 OSPFv3
- •5.2.8 IS-IS Graceful Restart
- •5.2.9 Routing Information Protocol (RIP)
- •5.2.10 Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP) and Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP)
- •5.2.11 Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)
- •5.2.12 Stuck-in-Active
- •5.2.13 Why use EIGRP?
- •5.3 Exterior Protocols
- •5.3.1 Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
- •5.3.2 Authentication of BGP
- •5.3.3 BGP Graceful Restart
- •5.3.4 Multiprotocol BGP
- •6 Routing Policy
- •6.1 What is Policy For?
- •6.1.1 Who Pays Whom?
- •6.2 Implementing Scalable Routing Policies
- •6.3 How is Policy Evaluated?
- •6.3.2 The Flow of Policy Evaluation
- •6.4 Policy Matches
- •6.5 Policy Actions
- •6.5.1 The Default Action
- •6.5.2 Accept/Permit, Reject/Deny, and Discard
- •6.6 Policy Elements
- •6.7 AS Paths
- •6.9 Internet Routing Registries
- •6.10 Communities
- •6.11 Multi-Exit Discriminator (MED)
- •6.12 Local Preference
- •6.13 Damping
- •6.14 Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding
- •6.15 Policy Routing/Filter-Based Forwarding
- •6.16 Policy Recommendations
- •6.16.1 Policy Recommendations for Customer Connections
- •6.16.2 Policy Recommendations for Peering Connections
- •6.16.3 Policy Recommendations for Transit Connections
- •6.17 Side Effects of Policy
- •7 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
- •7.2 Label Distribution Protocols
- •7.3 Tag Distribution Protocol (TDP)
- •7.4 Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
- •7.4.1 LDP Graceful Restart
- •7.5.1 RSVP-TE Graceful Restart
- •7.6 Fast Reroute
- •7.7 Integrating ATM and IP Networks
- •7.8 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
- •8 Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
- •8.1 VPNs at Layer 3
- •8.1.1 Layer 3 VPN (RFC 2547bis)
- •8.1.2 Generic Router Encapsulation (GRE)
- •8.1.3 IPsec
- •8.2 VPNs at Layer 2
- •8.2.1 Circuit Cross-Connect (CCC)
- •8.2.3 Martini (Layer 2 circuits)
- •8.2.4 Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS)
- •8.2.5 Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
- •8.2.6 Layer 2 Tunnelling Protocol (L2TP)
- •9.1 Design and Architectural Issues of CoS/QoS
- •9.2 CoS/QoS Functional Elements
- •9.2.3 Congestion Avoidance Mechanisms
- •9.2.4 Queueing Strategies
- •9.3 QoS Marking Mechanisms
- •9.3.1 Layer 2 Marking
- •9.3.2 Layer 3 QoS
- •9.3.3 MPLS EXP
- •9.4 Integrating QoS at Layer 2, in IP and in MPLS
- •9.4.1 DiffServ Integration with MPLS
- •10 Multicast
- •10.1 Multicast Forwarding at Layer 2
- •10.1.1 Multicast on Ethernet and FDDI
- •10.1.2 Multicast Over Token Ring
- •10.1.3 Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP)
- •10.1.4 IGMP Snooping
- •10.1.5 PIM/DVMRP Snooping
- •10.1.6 Immediate Leave Processing
- •10.1.7 Cisco Group Management Protocol (CGMP)
- •10.2 Multicast Routing
- •10.2.1 Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) Check
- •10.2.2 Dense Mode Protocols
- •10.2.3 Sparse Mode Protocols
- •10.2.4 Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP)
- •10.2.5 Multiprotocol BGP
- •10.2.6 Multicast Scoping
- •11.1 Evolution and Revolution
- •11.2 IPv6 Headers
- •11.3 IPv6 Addressing
- •11.3.1 Hierarchical Allocations
- •11.3.2 Address Classes
- •11.5 Domain Name System (DNS)
- •11.6 Transition Mechanisms
- •11.6.1 Dual Stack
- •11.6.3 Tunnelling IPv6 in IPv4
- •11.7 Routing in IPv6
- •11.7.2 OSPFv3
- •11.7.3 RIPng
- •11.7.4 Multiprotocol BGP
- •11.8 Multicast in IPv6
- •11.9 IPv6 Security
- •11.10 Mobility in IPv6
- •References
- •Index
11.7 ROUTING IN IPv6 |
161 |
11.7 ROUTING IN IPv6
In general, routing in IPv6 is no different from routing in IPv4. This is not entirely surprising since the forwarding of IPv6 packets is similar to the forwarding of IPv4 and the routing process is responsible for the selection of forwarding paths. Below, I have briefly described the differences between each of the routing protocols listed in Chapter 5 and their implementations for IPv6, if such an implementation exists. At the time of writing, IPv6 implementations of IS-IS, OSPF, RIPng and BGP have been created.
11.7.1IS-IS FOR IPv6
As noted on several occasions before, IS-IS is, by design, extensible. It was extended to carry IPv4 NLRI. In order to carry IPv6 NLRI, IS-IS simply required the definition of some new TLVs. It is possible with a single IS-IS process to carry NLRI for IPv4, IPv6, CLNP, MPLS traffic engineering information and, theoretically, any other routed protocol simultaneously. This clearly provides the potential for enhanced scalability over any system in which routed protocols have to be carried in their own routing protocols. Because of the relative simplicity of extending IS-IS, it was the first widely deployed ‘serious’ IGP for IPv6.
11.7.2OSPFv3
OSPFv3 is a new protocol designed explicitly for the exchange of IPv6 NLRI. It is not currently capable of exchanging IPv4 NLRI, although proposals are being put forward to enable OSPFv3 to carry multiple routed protocols in a single routing instance. This is potentially both a positive and a negative. On the negative side, having a separate routing process requires more memory and potentially more processing power to maintain the memory structures, routing state and associated overhead. On the positive side, if there is a failure in the routing protocol associated with one routed protocol (e.g. IPv4), having a different parallel routing protocol for another routed protocol (e.g. IPv6) would hopefully sustain that other routed protocol until such time as the failed routing protocol can be restored. This argument follows similar lines to those used against stateful failover of control modules (see Chapter 1).
11.7.3 RIPng
RIPng was the first routing protocol to be developed and widely deployed for IPv6. RIPng is, effectively, RIPv2 just extended to be able to carry IPv6 NLRI. It has no other enhancements or limitations beyond those associated with IPv4. Scaling issues are constrained to the extra size of the addresses being held in the routing table. Had it not