In your previous mail you wrote:
* Iljitsch van Beijnum
> The routing protocols use link locals, so they don't care.
BGP cannot possibly resolve a link-local next-hop, can it?
=> the issue was addressed years ago but this carefully wording:
The link-local address shall be
On 2011-02-09 06:15, Tore Anderson wrote:
> BGP cannot possibly resolve a link-local next-hop, can it?
Here's how to do it on Cisco:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipv6/configuration/guide/ip6-mptcl_bgp.html#wp1037072
It's "officially approved". ;)
Simon
--
DTN made easy, lean, and smart -
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tore Anderson wrote:
Yes, but my point is that if you don't configure a global (at least
non-link-local) prefix on the router interconnections, there's no global
address that can be announced as the BGP next-hop. With no global
address, the immediate link-local next-hop cannot
On 9 feb 2011, at 12:40, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> IPv6 BGP does in fact carry gloal and link local next hop addresses.
>
> Yes, but my point is that if you don't configure a global (at least
> non-link-local) prefix on the router interconnections, there's no global
> address that can be announced
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Iljitsch van Beijnum
IPv6 BGP does in fact carry gloal and link local next hop addresses.
Yes, but my point is that if you don't configure a global (at least
non-link-local) prefix on the router interconnections, there's no global
address that can
* Iljitsch van Beijnum
> IPv6 BGP does in fact carry gloal and link local next hop addresses.
Yes, but my point is that if you don't configure a global (at least
non-link-local) prefix on the router interconnections, there's no global
address that can be announced as the BGP next-hop. With no glo
On 9 feb 2011, at 12:15, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> The routing protocols use link locals, so they don't care.
> BGP cannot possibly resolve a link-local next-hop, can it?
Not sure what you mean.
IPv6 BGP does in fact carry gloal and link local next hop addresses.
Of course most people will want
* Iljitsch van Beijnum
> The routing protocols use link locals, so they don't care.
BGP cannot possibly resolve a link-local next-hop, can it?
Best regards,
--
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Tel: +47 21 54 41 27
-
On 9 feb 2011, at 11:58, Ole Troan wrote:
>> However, I can't find any documentation for this behavior. Is there an RFC
>> that specifies this as part of normal IPv6 router behavior?
> weak host model. RFC1122.
Hah, this RFC talks about "weak ES" and "strong ES" models. I'm not sure if
that's
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I've been telling people for years that with IPv6, you don't need a
global scope address on an interface. The routing protocols use link
locals, so they don't care. And should an ICMP message need to be
generated, the source address is filled
> I've been telling people for years that with IPv6, you don't need a global
> scope address on an interface. The routing protocols use link locals, so
they
> don't care. And should an ICMP message need to be generated, the source
> address is filled in with a global scope address borrowed from ano
> I've been telling people for years that with IPv6, you don't need a global
> scope address on an interface. The routing protocols use link locals, so they
> don't care. And should an ICMP message need to be generated, the source
> address is filled in with a global scope address borrowed from
12 matches
Mail list logo
