On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Tim Densmore wrote:
Just a quick sanity check. I'm in the early stages of planning customer IPv6
deployment and am trying to figure out how I'm going to deliver SLAAC over
P2P (ATM specifically) and QinQ interfaces for DSL or similar, in non-PPP
scenarios.
When I started poking around, it became apparently quickly that "ipv6
unnumbered loopbackN" wouldn't work since loopbacks apparently can't/won't
send RAs, and this would break DAD in any event, or at least make is useless.
Digging around, the recommendations I've seen are to simply apply a static
/64 to each subint. This seems absurdly cumbersome, even if using
general-prefix. Am I missing something here or am I "stuck in ipv4 mode?"
Can anyone point me to a better way to handle this?
I think you need to elaborate what "this" is.
People typically use /126 for link networks, but you don't actually need
them as a lot of things can be done using only link local. That however
won't work with RAs (you don't specify why you want to use RAs).
So take one further step back and describe what you want to achieve.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
