nanog mailing list archives
Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka () globaltransit net>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:45:03 +0800
On Friday, December 09, 2011 08:57:39 PM Jen Linkova wrote:
on second thought - why are they using link-local as the next-hop in the first place if the eBGP session is established over GUA?
This topic was heavily discussed on 'ipv6-ops' back in February. You may take a look here for all the details on this: http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2011- February/004887.html Cheers, Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Current thread:
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering, (continued)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Peter Rubenstein (Dec 07)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Randy Carpenter (Dec 07)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Justin M. Streiner (Dec 07)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Jack Bates (Dec 07)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Vicky Shrestha (Dec 07)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Jen Linkova (Dec 08)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Randy Carpenter (Dec 09)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Daniel Roesen (Dec 09)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Jen Linkova (Dec 09)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Randy Carpenter (Dec 07)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Peter Rubenstein (Dec 07)
- Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering Mark Tinka (Dec 09)