Which two protocols would be used for dynamic routing in IPv6 environments? (Choose two.)
The transition to IPv6 requires routing protocols that are capable of carrying 128-bit address information. Juniper Networks Junos OS supports several 'IPv6-ready' protocols for dynamic routing.
1. IS-IS (Option B):
As discussed in previous questions, IS-IS is inherently extensible due to its use of TLVs (Type, Length, Value). To support IPv6, the protocol did not need a major rewrite; instead, new TLVs (such as TLV 236 for IPv6 reachability and TLV 232 for IPv6 interface addresses) were added. A single IS-IS process in Junos can simultaneously carry both IPv4 and IPv6 routing information, making it a highly efficient choice for 'dual-stack' service provider backbones.
2. BGP (Option D):
BGP was updated to support multiple protocols through Multiprotocol Extensions (MP-BGP), defined in RFC 4760. By using Address Family Identifiers (AFI) and Subsequent Address Family Identifiers (SAFI), a single BGP session can exchange NLRI (Network Layer Reachability Information) for IPv4 unicast, IPv6 unicast, and even VPNv4/VPNv6 routes. In Junos, this is configured under the family inet6 unicast hierarchy within the BGP protocols configuration.
Why other options are incorrect:
IGMP (Option A): This is a management protocol for IPv4 multicast (Internet Group Management Protocol). Its IPv6 equivalent is MLD (Multicast Listener Discovery).
OSPFv2 (Option C): OSPF version 2 is strictly for IPv4. To run OSPF in an IPv6 environment, OSPFv3 must be used, as it was specifically redesigned to handle the IPv6 address space and link-local communication.
Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!