[147400] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Juniper <-> Cisco IPv6 BGP peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Fri Dec 9 09:46:28 2011
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka@globaltransit.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:45:03 +0800
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BASaVth0suRGQqwGLHiAmZyV5TYhvwmcvu7GD+7Kc8oE7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: mtinka@globaltransit.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart82719735.Ktja7B5grf
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Friday, December 09, 2011 08:57:39 PM Jen Linkova wrote:
> on second thought - why are they using link-local as the
> next-hop in the first place if the eBGP session is
> established over GUA?
This topic was heavily discussed on 'ipv6-ops' back in=20
=46ebruary. You may take a look here for all the details on=20
this:
http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2011-
=46ebruary/004887.html
Cheers,
Mark.
--nextPart82719735.Ktja7B5grf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)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=QywW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart82719735.Ktja7B5grf--
