<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi All,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I was wondering (while I wait for Cisco to come back to me) if anyone had a solution to the problem of the fact that IPv6 and APS don’t seem to function together correctly on Cisco 7600s.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We have two 7600 series routers on either side of a protected STM-64, we then run APS on both sides. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This works by allowing us to use the same V4 address on BOTH interfaces on a single router with APS enabled, so irrespective of which interface is in working mode and which is in protected the circuit stays working (The other option would be to use a /29 across the interfaces with one address per interface in the /29 for a total of 4 addresses and then run IS-IS between the two routers and bgp neighbor to the loopbacks).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>However, neither solution works with IPv6 because even with the APS enabled you cannot have overlapping IPv6 subnets on different interfaces on the same router. This means that APS is effectively non-functional when running IPv6.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We also considered running two separate /127s on each “set” of interfaces, but there is no guarantee that if one side switches to the protection the other side won’t still be on working, in which case this breaks as well.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Any ideas/solutions while I beg Cisco to fix this?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Andrew<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>