From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 18:51:21 GMT-3
Hi guys,
I just saw the excellent IE presentation on IPv6 earlier today. I'm glad I
did. I think Brian M. did a great job of comparing how ipv4 and ipv6 works.
For anyone who isn't that experienced with ipv6 and hasn't seen this
presentation, I strongly recommend listening to this presentation.
However, after thinking about what I saw in this presentation, I'm confused
about one thing.
Did anyone notice that after the f/r interfaces were assigned an ipv6
address and map statements to the remote global unicast addresses were
added, pings between the routers were successful.
But, a little later on, we were shown why over nbma networks, 1 map
statement to each remote router wasn't enough. We needed to add a second
map statement to the remote link-local address so that L3 to L2 address
resolution could be done. OK, that makes sense.
However, before the map statements were added for the link-local address,
pings worked.
Why is that?
Doesn't that seem strange? Why would pings work when routing over the f/r
interfaces doesn't work without the 2nd map statements?
Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
TIA, Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 03 2005 - 07:55:00 GMT-3