It is strongly recommended in this environment that the use of a
"loopback" interface be coded as the nexthop address. Also of concern
is auto-summarization.
Otherwise, from my experience if this is an originating BGP announcement
from an iBGP peer only. If there is only 1 other peer, it will u
Hi,
I've been reading a few drafts and RFCs in this matter and I couldn't
find an explanation why the Flow Label field has to read the
destination with the same value the source sent it.
Wouldn't it introduce a whole lot of new capabilities (without as many
limitations) if the Flow Label field ha
Hello all,
I have a question regarding redistribution of IPv6 ISIS routes into BGP.
The v6 routes of ISIS have link local next hops. So, when these are
redistributed into I-BGP( without route maps having next hop set clause),
what should be the value of global next hop v6 address to be sent in th
(Just coming back to normal work from a vacation, sorry for the
delayed response)
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:37:45 -0800,
> Bill Fenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Is my understanding now correct?
> Yes, that looks right. And even if getaddrinfo took whatever
> form directly (either the
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 07:24:25 -0600,
> Kristine Adamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Suggestion:
>> 1) Set up an issue tracker for this (and perhaps every IPv6 RFC for
>> which there are some known errors/omissions?) that keeps track of
>> these sorts of things. That way folk will be abl
(Sorry for the long delay for this thread. I've been off-list for a
vacation.)
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:33:45 -0700,
> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Anycast is complicated, and the complications are not specific to
>> IPv6. It really would be doing the world a favor if the IP
