From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2005 - 19:36:49 GMT-3
No problem.
If you have a chance, you may want to take a look and sample some of those
ipv6 VoD's. They're actually not bad for the high level view.
I'm just surprised that they indicated the route-map was required if, in
fact, it isn't. (But, Cisco had been wrong many a time.)
The example they showed was the simpliest possible one - 2 bgp peers doing a
ebgp peering across an ethernet link.
I'm sure glad though there are people like you out there to keep Cisco
honest. It's not a good thing when Cisco goes to the expense of making a
VoD and it's wrong.
Thanks, Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Sinclair" <bsinclair@netmasterclass.net>
To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: BGP Neighbors for IPv6
> Tim,
>
> I have not had a chance to see the VoD, so I am not sure what other
> circumstances may be involved there. Have not tried the route-map
approach,
> but it may work just fine as well. It would seem to make good sense
> best-practice-wise to use the link-local, since it allows for easy
> renumbering. But I don't see the necessity for the route-map. Maybe IOS
> difference??
>
> Bob Sinclair
> CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
> www.netmasterclass.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
> To: "Bob Sinclair" <bsinclair@netmasterclass.net>; "Sean C"
> <Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 4:54 PM
> Subject: Re: BGP Neighbors for IPv6
>
>
> > Hmmm, interesting.
> >
> > So, why do you think the VoD lesson on ipv6 bgp makes a point of using a
> > route-map to set the next hop address to
> >
> > an ipv6 global unicast address if it's not required?
> >
> > Is that a best practice for some reason?
> >
> > Thanks, Tim
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bob Sinclair" <bsinclair@netmasterclass.net>
> > To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "Sean C" <Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com>;
> > <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 4:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: BGP Neighbors for IPv6
> >
> >
> >> Hi Tim,
> >>
> >> Since the router always prompts for an outgoing interface when the
> >> destination is link-local, it would make sense that it needs more
> >> "direction" in order use the link-local address. I was able to get BGP
> >> peers to come up using the configuration below. It peers to the far
> >> link-local address and uses the outgoing interface in the update-source
> >> command:
> >>
> >> On R2:
> >>
> >> router bgp 24
> >> no synchronization
> >> bgp log-neighbor-changes
> >> neighbor FE80::204:C1FF:FE8E:C40 remote-as 24
> >> neighbor FE80::204:C1FF:FE8E:C40 update-source FastEthernet0/0
> >> no auto-summary
> >> !
> >> address-family ipv4 multicast
> >> no auto-summary
> >> no synchronization
> >> exit-address-family
> >> !
> >> address-family ipv6
> >> neighbor FE80::204:C1FF:FE8E:C40 activate
> >> exit-address-family
> >>
> >> On R4:
> >>
> >> router bgp 24
> >> no synchronization
> >> bgp log-neighbor-changes
> >> neighbor FE80::2D0:58FF:FE95:C8E1 remote-as 24
> >> neighbor FE80::2D0:58FF:FE95:C8E1 update-source FastEthernet0/0
> >> no auto-summary
> >> !
> >> address-family ipv4 multicast
> >> no auto-summary
> >> no synchronization
> >> exit-address-family
> >> !
> >> address-family ipv6
> >> neighbor FE80::2D0:58FF:FE95:C8E1 activate
> >> exit-address-family
> >>
> >> Result:
> >>
> >> R4#sh bgp ipv6 summary
> >> BGP router identifier 172.16.104.1, local AS number 24
> >> BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1
> >>
> >> Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down
> >> State/PfxRcd
> >> FE80::2D0:58FF:FE95:C8E1
> >> 4 24 10 10 1 0 0 00:06:20
> > 0
> >> R4#
> >>
> >> Note good peer!!
> >>
> >> Bob Sinclair
> >> CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
> >> www.netmasterclass.net
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
> >> To: "Bob Sinclair" <bsinclair@netmasterclass.net>; "Sean C"
> >> <Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 3:31 PM
> >> Subject: Re: BGP Neighbors for IPv6
> >>
> >>
> >> > There's a VoD on Cisco's PEC site that talked about this.
> >> >
> >> > I watched it yesterday.
> >> >
> >> > In the example they used, if a link-local address was used in the
> > neighbor
> >> > <ipv6 -LL-addr> remote command, 2 other things were also required:
> >> >
> >> > 1) the neighbor <ipv6 LL-addr> source-update command and
> >> >
> >> > 2) a route-map that sets the next hop to the ipv6 unicast address for
> > that
> >> > neighbor.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not able to try that at the moment, but would you agree?
> >> >
> >> > Tim
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Bob Sinclair" <bsinclair@netmasterclass.net>
> >> > To: "Sean C" <Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 2:52 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: BGP Neighbors for IPv6
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Sean,
> >> >>
> >> >> A certain gentleman of our mutual acquaintance assures me that
either
> > the
> >> >> routable or link-local address could be used, if the neighbor is
> > directly
> >> >> connected. If you do use the link-local, however, you will need to
> >> >> use
> >> >> update-source. Give it a shot.
> >> >>
> >> >> HTH,
> >> >>
> >> >> Bob Sinclair
> >> >> CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
> >> >> www.netmasterclass.net
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "Sean C" <Upp_and_Upp@hotmail.com>
> >> >> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 1:24 PM
> >> >> Subject: BGP Neighbors for IPv6
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have a question but it's not from any particular vendor's
practice
> >> > test.
> >> >> > If
> >> >> > I'm given a hub-and-spoke multipoint frame topology, and on the
hub
> > and
> >> >> > spokes
> >> >> > I place both IPv6 addresses and IPv6 link-local addresses with the
> >> >> > appropriate
> >> >> > frame maps for the neighbors, if I configure BGP over the
topology:
> >> >> > 1-do I need to apply the IPv6 address or the link-local address on
> > the
> >> >> > neighbor statements under the BGP process and address-family?
> >> >> > 2-is there a difference if the neighbors are iBGP vs. eBGP?
> >> >> > 3-can I use either address? Or, perhaps if using the link-local
> >> >> > address
> >> > I
> >> >> > need to update-source?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm trying to keep this a simple question (if possible). Hope
this
> >> > makes
> >> >> > sense, and thanks in advance.
> >> >> > Sean
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> >> >> > Subscription information may be found at:
> >> >> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >> >>
> >> >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 08:51:21 GMT-3