Good day,.
Apologize if I ask the wrong question or anything, I just wondering how to
configure an unsuppressed map in iox-xr for BGP aggregate with
summary-only, hence I tried to google but was unable to find any good
sample. I am doing this for my lab, thank you so much for answering this
the only real example from switching my (Android) phone to
IPv6-only was that Skype broke ... until 464XLAT support was enabled (now
included by default, so even that is all good!).
HTH,
/TJ
On Tue Jan 27 2015 at 5:20:20 PM Scott Voll svoll.v...@gmail.com wrote:
OK I think I know that NAT64
be
mis-remembering.
/TJ
___
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/
If they are on the same L2, and addressed on the same L3, you should be
able to ping unless you have a vACL/pAcL blocking IPv6/ICMPv6 ... can you
ping between their link-locals?
/TJ
/TJ
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Scott Voll svoll.v...@gmail.com wrote:
So I may be dense or something
.)
That is the desired goal of that setting; unless something else indicates
destinations are on-link (like a redirect).
More useful on links suing a /64 prefix length but where the neighbors
cannot talk to each other for some reason.
/TJ
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco
I would guess that you don't have DOM support on your transceivers ?
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Farooq Razzaque
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:53 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp]
for both IPv6 and
IPv4 address resolution ( and A), and the node should only ask for
resolution if it (thinks it) has IPv6 connectivity ...
/TJ
** - Happy Eyeballs notwithstanding ...*
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https
If a router has no IPv4 addresses to 'borrow' and use as a convenient 32bit
value, you must manually configure the RID.
/TJ
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:50, Jeferson Guardia jefers...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Group,
A doubt/curiosity, what happens in a router that you are setting up IGP's
?
BTW, I will be more than happy to be wrong!
Yes, let's! I'll buy you a drink and we can commiserate about how easy the
next generation has it, what with all of those IPv6 gadgets just working and
making life so easy they don't even think about the network anymore ;).
/TJ
DHCPv6 (e.g. WinXP) so you may
still need a solution for those.
... baby steps ... tiny, agonizingly slow, sometimes wobbly baby steps.
/TJ
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive
the router and link in question, so in a overly
simple case - router 23's interface on VLAN37 could be something like:
Fe80::23:37
... this (or some derivative) makes troubleshooting easier later on
/TJ
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp
inspection, DHCP Guard ...
/TJ
___
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/
Doering g...@greenie.muc.de writes:
Yes. IETF really botched that everything is automatic but we don't
tell you how to discover DNS part.
In every design there are tradeoffs that are made ... and with the benefit of
hindsight it is easy to point at the wrong decisions.
/TJ
resolution is probably lessened.
In the end, I agree - my host needs information (DNS) along with addressing,
so Just Make It Work(tm) :).
/TJ
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive
and does work for v6 addressing.
Is this ideal? Of course not, but I'd rather it not be mis-represented as
totally dysfunctional.
Please, push vendors to get RA+DNS (RFC5006) supported on router and host
platforms.
/TJ
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
performance + easier configuration by distributing the point of
service.
/TJ
___
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/
a PS.
)
Jared Mauch
Thanks!
/TJ
___
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/
: If it exists,
Great! ... sorry I missed it!)
/TJ
___
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/
not too far off on this one.
Totally disagree, but I might also be biased ... in several cases IPv6
already is deployed (within the US), but let's talk again in 1-3 years?
/TJ
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net
IPv6
already is deployed (within the US), but let's talk again in 1-3 years?
/TJ
Let's see...from our big carriers:
AboveNet: No IPv6
Verizon: No IPv6
Savvis: No IPv6
Level3: No IPv6
GBLX: IPv6!
Verio: IPv6!
Sure, we have some smaller providers and peers that run it, too, but until
, which is a nice side effect).
Good point ... in fact, we had NTT/Verio for a bit. Wish we still did (even
if they were doing the whole /126 on point to point links think).
(I meant to include that some carriers do fully offer IPv6 today, but
somehow edited that out ... my bad)
gert
/TJ
to not use /64s as dictated ...
Again, /126 works just fine - otherwise I wouldn't be wishing for NTT/Verio
to be my SP again ;).
/TJ
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive
support is not exactly 100% available on
all platforms, atleast
not natively (3rd party apps exist, e.g. - Dibbler). Many
routers currently support
stateless DHCPv6 server functionality only ... not stateful.
HTH!
/TJ
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun
!
/TJ
___
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/
/?l=ipngm=122406652232186w=2
Again, I think we are far from having consensus on RA deprecation ... while
the current handling of M O bits are far from optimal, I don't see the RAs
themselves going away.
/TJ
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp
-hop attribute setting).
HTH!
/TJ
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:34 AM
To: Ziv Leyes
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] New IPv6 BGP peer on a pure IPv4 network
Hi
Yes, you could ask for it to source/send multicast traffic as well ... which
it does :).
(Sorry; Yes - VLC is great ... multiplatform, sends and recvs, just about
any file type supported, free ...)
/TJ
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp-
[EMAIL PROTECTED
in the night approach than the term multiprotocol tag implies. Also
- EIGRP for IPv6 is not supported by Catalyst devices as of today, IIRC.
/TJ
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:cisco-nsp-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Armstrong
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 12:34 PM
28 matches
Mail list logo
