[152399] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: JUNOS forwards IPv6 link-local packets
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Apr 28 04:13:53 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLabC=SBmjaV519_wEPgQo=LtV3-j_8LgPbsaiQ4Up3NMPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:09:28 -0700
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
We kind of needed them in IPv4, though not universally.
At least in IPv6, we have them.
Owen
On Apr 27, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> you know what I love? address selection rules, or rather the fact that
> we have to have them in this new ip protocol :(
>=20
> bugs and code problems and operational headaches and filters and ... =
:(
>=20
> 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:
>>>=20
>>> Once upon a time, Jack Bates<jbates@brightok.net> said:
>>>>=20
>>>> fe80::/65 discard
>>>> fe80:0:0:0:8000::/65 discard
>>>>=20
>>>> More specifics rule out over connected any day.
>>>=20
>>> That would also kill any legitimate link-local traffic though.
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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 =
could
>> likely ignore the route, as it has to send to specific interfaces. =
Receiving
>> on interfaces that don't have uRPF should still work as well.
>>=20
>> It's a theory and would have to be tested.
>>=20
>> Jack
>>=20
