nanog mailing list archives
Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
From: Glen Kent <glen.kent () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 06:25:44 +0530
Sven,
also various bgp implementations will send the autoconfigure crap ip as the next-hop instead of the session ip, resulting in all kinds of crap in your route table (if not fixed with nasty hacks on your end ;) which doesn't exactly make it easy to figure out which one belongs to which peer all the more reason not to use that autoconfigure crap ;)
As per RFC 2545 BGP announces a global address as the next-hop. Its only in one particular case that it advertises both global and link local addresses. So, i guess, BGP is not broken. Its only RIPng afaik that mandates using a link local address. Glen
Current thread:
- subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 23)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 23)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Karl Auer (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Alexandru Petrescu (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Jonathan Lassoff (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 23)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Sven Olaf Kamphuis (Dec 24)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 26)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Joel Maslak (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Chuck Anderson (Dec 27)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Glen Kent (Dec 25)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 25)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Ray Soucy (Dec 28)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? Alexandru Petrescu (Dec 29)