[168542] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fw: ipv6 newbie question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Wed Jan 29 13:04:02 2014
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:44:18 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <52E93ECF.6010900@foobar.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 29/01/2014 17:35, Philip Lavine wrote:
>> Is it best practice to have the internet facing BGP router's peering ip
>> (or for that matter any key gateway or security appliance) use a
>> statically configured address or use EUI-64 auto config?
>
> how are you going to set up the bgp session from the remote side to an
> eui-64 auto configured address on your side?
>
> best use static here. And make sure to disable RA (with fire, i.e. disable
> send + receive + answering solicited requests) and EUI64. If it's a point
> to point link, use a /126 or /127 netmask.
+1. I've seem some providers do /64 on their point-to-point links. I
don't have an issue with that, and the whole /64 vs /126 or /127 debate
has been thoroughly beaten into the ground. No need to re-hash it.
I have never seen a provider use a pseudo-dynamic address on an
interface/BGP peer. Having to reconfigure a BGP session because a
provider did a hardware upgrade or moved my link to a new interface would
not make me happy.
jms
