Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Link local for P-t-P links? (Was: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?)
From: Tom Lanyon <tom+nanog () oneshoeco com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:56:43 +1030

Hi,

On 01/12/2011, at 12:45 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
Link-Local?
[snip]
Am I a complete idiot missing some obvious major issues with link
locals, or am i just the only one not thinking IPv4-think? Opinions?
:)


In a DC / hosting provider context, we're doing this.

We started out assigning all of our PtP links (where we had /31s in the IPv4 world) IPv6 /64s and addressing using ::1 
and ::2 with /127 masks from these /64s (to address potential ND table overflow concerns), but have now settled on 
using automatic link-local addresses instead.

Our IGP propagates the routers' /128 loopbacks and these are used for routing user traffic.

Having the IGP table only contain the /128 loopbacks, and none of the PtP networks is nice. :)


On 01/12/2011, at 12:52 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
I for one get really irritated when my traceroutes and pings are
broken and I need to troubleshoot things. ;-)  But I guess something
has to give.

You don't have to give up working traceroute / ping to use link-local on your PtPs.  

Our traffic routes through globally reachable router loopbacks which looks pretty in traceroutes, are pingable and 
doesn't break PMTUD.

Tom



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]