From: RedWolf_NG@web.de
Date: Wed May 18 2005 - 12:55:01 GMT-3
As far as I know you are just building each neighborship (IGP) with the link-local addresses !
In IPv6.
This is the big difference related to v4.
Should be somewhere in the addressing packets, where also the IGP informations are inside.
-> per Definition.
Lee Donald <Lee.Donald@t-systems.co.uk> schrieb am 18.05.05 17:45:41:
>
> Thanks Scott, but IGP's are hop based in IPV4 aswell but they use the normal
> reachable outside ip address.
>
> It's bugging me............
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Morris [mailto:swm@emanon.com]
> Sent: 18 May 2005 16:40
> To: 'Lee Donald'
> Subject: RE: IPV6 Link Local FE80
>
> All IGPs are next-hop-based. And the most stable (unchanging) version of a
> local-link next-hop address is the link-local with IPv6.
>
> At least that's my interpretation of the theory and RFC!
>
> HTH,
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Lee
> Donald
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:26 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: IPV6 Link Local FE80
>
> Can anybody tell me why on frame-relay, using RIPng for instance does the
> rip route in the table point towards the link local of the originating
> router? Shouldn't this route come from the global address of the originating
> router?
> I know how to get it working over frame, by having a frame-map to the global
> and then a frame map to the link local of the remote but I would like to
> know why?
>
> Any takers?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Lee.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 10:11:58 GMT-3