On 17/08/2010, at 7:11 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: >>> Even if I did know the other side's global address, monitoring pings >>> cannot be sent to fe80::2. We'll have to ping c001:cafe::2 and >>> manually link that status with fe80::2 peering session on the NMS. >>> I would hate to do that with hundreds of sessions running inside my network. >>> That's always been a causes mistakes. We want to monitor what's >>> acutally running and not some alias address. >> >> yes, I see that point. >> how do you troubleshoot when you get a OSPFv3, RIP, or ISIS neighbor down >> message? >> cause then you'd only have a link-local address or a CLNS address. or is BGP >> troubleshooting different in some way? > > As of right now, we also have IPv4 addresses on the same links. The traps > we receive normally include enough info (e.g. circuit id, interface name, > IP address, whatever) that we can easily identify the link. Having links > with only IPv6 link-local addresses *and* no further info included in the > traps would be unacceptable. > > All our core links are configured with "normal" (global) IPv6 addresses. > We are fully aware of the fact that the routers also use IPv6 link local > addresses as *next hop* for most protocols (e.g. iBGP, IS-IS). We don't > deal with these link local addresses at all under normal circumstances - > instead we deal with the interface names that the routers also helpfully > tell us. > > Similarly, all our IPv6 eBGP peerings are configured with global IPv6 > addresses - here the IPv6 next hop is also a global IPv6 address. > > So, to sum up: yes, we know that the IPv6 link local addresses exist on > our routers, no we don't normally "deal" with these addresses in any way. > > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Greetings, I share the same sentiments that Steinar has outlined in his post. In the networks that I build, I would prefer to use IPv6 global addresses for peering. I find any position that management systems will reduce the operational complexity of peering with IPv6 link-locals to be academic; the position of security in peering is an interesting one and in some circumstances I would even consider the use of it, but I would certainly not convert any large scale network to using link-local peering without having the necessary code to manage all existing events. I think that there will be considerable "resistance to change", and any strong argument for the change needs to be outlined. At this time I have not seen a strong one presented. We (all of us) have been running, building, innovating changes to service provider networks for years and in a market where margins become smaller and smaller, the case would need to be presented where there was significant value in the change to link-local peering. Kind regards, Truman -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
