[138641] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Durack)
Fri Mar 11 14:05:35 2011
In-Reply-To: <20110311185541.2C618A009@h-mailbag-msp-1.msp-coloc.binc.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:04:45 -0500
From: Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com>
To: James Stahr <stahr@mailbag.com>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 1:55 PM, James Stahr <stahr@mailbag.com> wrote:
> Is anyone else considering only using link local for their PtoP links? I
> realized while deploying our IPv6 infrastructure that OSPFv3 uses the
> link-local address in the routing table and than the global address, so if I
> want to have a routing table which makes sense, I need to statically assign
> a global address AND the link-local address. Then I realized, why even
> assign a global in the first place? Traceroutes replies end up using the
> loopback. BGP will use loopbacks. So is there any obvious harm in this
> approach that I'm missing?
>
For now I have allocated /64s per p-t-p, but I'm doing "ipv6 unnumbered
loopback0"
I quite like how the core route table looks. It also lets me avoid "The
Point to Point Wars" :-)
Maybe there will be a good reason to go back and slap globals on there, but
I've not been convinced yet.
--
Tim:>
