On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 06:03:53PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 5 août 2019 17:24 +02, Ondrej Zajicek <santi...@crfreenet.org>: > >> Notably: > >> > >> - establish a BGP session using an interface name and the associated > >> link-local IPv6 address, > > > > This is already supported since long time. > > You mean I can do: > > protocol bgp XXX { > neighbor; > interface eth0; > /* ... */ > } > > ?
No, you need to specify neighbor link-local address (i probably misunderstood your point): protocol bgp XXX { neighbor fe80::1 external; interface eth0; } or protocol bgp XXX { neighbor fe80::1%eth0 ; } For passive mode, you could probably use (since 2.0.5) dynamic BGP with link-local addresses: protocol bgp XXX { neighbor range fe80::/64 external; interface eth0; } (Although i did not test this feature with link-local addresses, i thought more about IBGP route reflectors) It is a bit ugly for a PtP link, It is true that a simple BGP protocol that accept any peer IP from that interface could also makes sense. I did not notice that. > >> - implement RFC5549 (IPv4 NLRI with an IPv6 next-hop) > > > > This is supported since 2.0.0 in BGP, but there is still no support > > in Linux kernel (AFAIK) and in Kernel protocol. > > Cumulus chose to implement it without support in the kernel by using > link-local IPv4 addresses and static ARP entries. I don't know how > standard and interoperable this is. Hmm, that seems like an ugly hack with a lot of work in userspace. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santi...@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature