[152380] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: JUNOS forwards IPv6 link-local packets
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Fri Apr 27 15:17:13 2012
In-Reply-To: <4F9AC9E4.2070702@brightok.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:16:27 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
you know what I love? address selection rules, or rather the fact that
we have to have them in this new ip protocol :(
bugs and code problems and operational headaches and filters and ... :(
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 11:20 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>>
>> Once upon a time, Jack Bates<jbates@brightok.net> =A0said:
>>>
>>> fe80::/65 discard
>>> fe80:0:0:0:8000::/65 discard
>>>
>>> More specifics rule out over connected any day.
>>
>> That would also kill any legitimate link-local traffic though.
>
>
> Perhaps. I'm actually curious on that, as the rules for routing to
> link-local are very specialized. It might flag on uRPF for local traffic,
> but that can be overcome with a fail filter. Sending out from the RE coul=
d
> likely ignore the route, as it has to send to specific interfaces. Receiv=
ing
> on interfaces that don't have uRPF should still work as well.
>
> It's a theory and would have to be tested.
>
> Jack
>
