nanog mailing list archives
Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?
From: Glen Kent <glen.kent () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 04:58:19 +0530
It seems ISIS and OSPFv3 use the link local next-hop in their route advertisements. We discussed that SLAAC doesnt work with prefixes > 64 on the ethernet medium (which i believe is quite, if not most, prevalent). If thats the case then how are operators who assign netmasks > 64 use ISIS and OSPF, since these protocols will use the link local address? I had assumed that nodes derive their link local address from the Route Advertisements. They derive their least significant 64 bytes from their MACs and the most significant 64 from the prefix announced in the RAs. Glen On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Glen Kent <glen.kent () gmail com> wrote:
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)
- Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6? sthaug (Dec 28)