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
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 another
13 matches
Mail list logo