On 9/14/2014 11:20 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
>
>> Slightly off topic, but has there ever been a proposed protocol where hosts
>> can register their L2/L3 binding with their connected switch (which could
>> then propagate the binding to othe
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 04:19:42PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Tarko Tikan wrote:
> > 2000::/64 has nothing to do with it.
> >
> > Any address between 2000::::::: and
> > 23ff::::::: together with misconfigured
On 14/09/2014 22:19, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Any decent router won't allow you to enter just anything in that range
> into the export rules with a /6, except 2000:: itself
tarko is right in suggesting that config typos can cause this sort of
thing, e.g.
--
router bgp 6
address-family ipv6
red
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Tarko Tikan wrote:
> 2000::/64 has nothing to do with it.
>
> Any address between 2000::::::: and
> 23ff::::::: together with misconfigured prefix
> length (6 instead 64) becomes 2000::/6 prefix.
It should be
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:
> Slightly off topic, but has there ever been a proposed protocol where hosts
> can register their L2/L3 binding with their connected switch (which could
> then propagate the binding to other switches in the Layer 2 domain)?
> Further discove
Slightly off topic, but has there ever been a proposed protocol where hosts
can register their L2/L3 binding with their connected switch (which could
then propagate the binding to other switches in the Layer 2 domain)?
Further discovery requests (e.g. ARP, ND) from other attached hosts could
then a
6 matches
Mail list logo
