nanog mailing list archives

Re: subnet prefix length > 64 breaks IPv6?


From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:45:03 -0800


On Dec 27, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Glen Kent wrote:

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?

The global unicast prefix length is independent of the link local prefix length.

Technically, link local is fe80::/10, though many implementations erroneously
treat it as fe80::/64. In most cases, since the 54 bits between fe80 and the
IID are almost always 0, this error has no impact.

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.


No, nodes derive their link local address from the reserved prefix fe80::/10
and their EUI-64 IID based on their MAC address. They then use that link
local address to send out an RS message in order to get global unicast
prefixes from the RAs received in response.

Owen

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: