[138568] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route table
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Thu Mar 10 14:12:33 2011
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:12:26 -0600
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC14026@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:52:37AM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
>
> What I have done on point to points and small subnets between routers
> is to simply make static neighbor entries. That eliminates any
> neighbor table exhaustion causing the desired neighbors to become
> unreachable. I also do the same with neighbors at public peering
> points. Yes, that comes at the cost of having to reconfigure the
> entry if a MAC address changes, but that doesn't happen often.
And this is better than just not trying to implement IPv6 stateless
auto-configuration on ptp links in the first place how exactly? Don't
get taken in by the people waving an RFC around without actually taking
the time to do a little critical thinking on their own first, /64s and
auto-configuration just don't belong on router ptp links. And btw only a
handful of routers are so poorly designed that they depend on not having
subnets longer than /64s when doing IPv6 lookups, and there are many
other good reasons why you should just not be using those boxes in the
first place. :)
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
