|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:56:31 -0500 From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> To: Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> In-Reply-To: <7a6830090910210837r780d2c3ao2fab45d305db39a1@mail.gmail.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org Ray Soucy wrote: > Would be a good idea to stop spreading the false assumption that "ipv6 > enable" determines whether or not IPv6 is active on an interface. > Play with IPv6 and is-is enough on a Cisco router, and you'll enable it as a matter of practice too. It's the definitive way to say "yes, this interface needs IPv6 active and I don't care if there's an address bound or not". I forget the exact circumstances, but I ran into several cases where I had undesired results and needed to manually enable IPv6 on an interface. Oh, and different versions of IOS behave differently towards IPv6. Imagine that. Jack
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |