From: Jongsoo.Kim@Intelsat.com
Date: Wed Feb 16 2005 - 20:19:02 GMT-3
I think a route-map changing next-hop address to global unicast is necessary
if link-local address is used for BGP peering.
Otherwise, other BGP peers not part of link-local segment has no way to
resolve link-local next-hop address for BGP route.
A router can have identical link-local address for multiple interface, which
is one of reasons why update source is necessary.
Regards
Jongsoo
-----Original Message-----
From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 February, 2005 4:54 PM
To: Bob Sinclair; Sean C; ccielab@groupstudy.com
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
> >> >
> >> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 08:51:21 GMT-3