[136019] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6: numbering of point-to-point-links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gary Buhrmaster)
Mon Jan 31 16:54:04 2011
In-Reply-To: <4D46EDA4.2030907@ispn.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:52:19 -0800
From: Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com>
To: Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 09:13, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
....
> I setup a p2p /127 link and found that BGP would not peer over the link;
> Changing to /126 resolved the problem. I never looked into it further
> because I had intended to use /126 from the start. My guess is that
> while BGP should be a unicast IP, Cisco's implementation uses an anycast
> in some cases, disregarding the configured unicast address.
>
> Just one practical example...
I suspect this is very platform/version specific, as I have run BGP
on a Cisco 6500 (SXI<mumble>) to a Juniper MX and we had no
trouble with a /127 (although prepared to move to a /126 or whatever
if needed). As always, your environment will vary. I would open
a TAC case on the principal that it should work.
