From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Thu Jun 02 2005 - 02:51:16 GMT-3
Interesting one....
Again... Without familiarity or much context here, my guess would be that
this is Cisco's implementation of RFC 2545 support (ipv6 on MBGP). Take a
look at section 4 where it discusses transport, and that may be why you see
that neighbor magically defined like that under your IPv6 address family.
I haven't played with this lab, or tried that myself for magical discovered
networks... But depending on what the rest of the config on your router
looked like (particularly IPv6 config) that may be a feasible explanation.
Perhaps one of the Brian's will chime in here with info about their own
labs!
Cheers,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: John Matus [mailto:john_matus@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 12:28 AM
To: swm@emanon.com; ccie2be@nyc.rr.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: ipv6 for bgp
yes, my config <for ease of discussion> was address-fam ipv6 nei 1.1.1.1
activate ............................
but, like i mentioned. after the adj came up, i did a show running config
and there <magically> appeared a seemingly equal ipv6 statement of the kind:
nei 1.1.1.1 remote 100
address-family ipv6
nei 1.1.1.1 activate
nei 2001::x remote 100
i did not configure the statement "nei 2001::x remote 100". it just
appeared!!! why is that? am i missing something or should i go 4 my 10th
cup of coffee today :)
>From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
>Reply-To: <swm@emanon.com>
>To: "'John Matus'"
><john_matus@hotmail.com>,<ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>,<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: ipv6 for bgp
>Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 22:47:31 -0400
>
>Ok. So you gave yourself reachability there somehow. And presumably
>you had basic connectivity in order to reach that one peer. (neighbor
>with the
>ipv6 address)
>
>So that's the guy you're discussing IPv6 stuff with.
>
>Now, I haven't got a clue how the Brian's labs are setup, although I'm
>sure they're mentally abusive! :) Beyond that though, I would expect
>that you have the same BGP problems we have in IPv4. Since your peer
>is in your AS, what does that tell you? The next hop isn't going to
>change, so wherever they point you for reachable routes, you need to know
how to get there...
>
>Your original post though showed your peer in ipv6 address family as
>1.1.1.1
>which is an IPv4 address. :)
>
>Scott
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>John Matus
>Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 10:19 PM
>To: swm@emanon.com; ccie2be@nyc.rr.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: ipv6 for bgp
>
>ok, but why- after i typed in the config below - did i then see the
>ipv6 address in the running config, even tho i did not enter it??? it
>was as though there was some sort of ipv6 negotiation/discovery process
>involved in this.....
>(preface/post-face: this was an IE lab. i was configuring ipv6 to
>peer w/ a backbone router of which i had no control over. the running
>config of my router had the ipv6 mapping as though i entered it manually
doing:
>router bgp 100
>nei 1.2.3.5 remote 100
>address-fam ipv6
>nei xxxx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx:: remote 100
>
> >From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
> >Reply-To: <swm@emanon.com>
> >To: "'John Matus'"
> ><john_matus@hotmail.com>,<ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>,<ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >>
> >Subject: RE: ipv6 for bgp
> >Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 21:11:49 -0400
> >
> >But on the other hand, when you try to reach BGP across the network
> >will it work? When the next hop is seen as an IPv4 address, doesn't
> >that kinda mess things up?
> >
> >I can see it, I just can't get there! ;)
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> >Of John Matus
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 8:22 PM
> >To: swm@emanon.com; ccie2be@nyc.rr.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: RE: ipv6 for bgp
> >
> >well scott,
> >if i was asked to peer 2 router with ipv6 bgp, would i have fulfilled
> >that task per my example below?
> >when i do a "sh bgp ipv6 nei sum" i do get a neighbor 1.1.1.1, and
>when
> >i
> >
> >check the running config i've got the ipv6 address added to my bgp
> >process.............
> >
> > >From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
> > >Reply-To: <swm@emanon.com>
> > >To: "'ccie2be'" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>,"'John Matus'"
> > ><john_matus@hotmail.com>,<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > >Subject: RE: ipv6 for bgp
> > >Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:04:18 -0400
> > >
> > >Not quite. An address family simply says "what are we going to
> > >talk about?"
> > >
> > >Don't confuse BGP with IP routing protocols. BGP is an application
> > >that discusses IP routes. By default it talks about IPv4 routes
> > >'cause that's what it was created for. However, it also discusses
> > >other things like VPNv4, Multicast and IPv6. The application is
> > >still the
> >application.
> > >
> > >So in your example there, you are peering two IPv4 devices with an
> > >IPv4 TCP application to talk about IPv6 routes. You may now know
> > >where these routes are but have nowhere to use them!
> > >
> > >It's kinda like you and I discussing some entertaining words in
>Japanese.
> > >While it may be very nice that we now know a few choice words, it's
> > >not like either of us has any place to actually use that knowledge
> > >(at least in my case!).
> > >
> > >HTH,
> > >
> > >Scott
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> > >Behalf Of ccie2be
> > >Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:35 PM
> > >To: 'John Matus'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: RE: ipv6 for bgp
> > >
> > >What's the physical link over which BGP is trying to peer?
> > >
> > >It does make a difference.
> > >
> > >Tim
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> > >Behalf Of John Matus
> > >Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:03 PM
> > >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: ipv6 for bgp
> > >
> > >just wondering if my observations were correct..........
> > >if you have a peer that runs both ipv4 and ipv6 and you do the
>following:
> > >
> > >router bgp 100
> > >neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote 100
> > >address-family ipv6
> > >neighbor 1.1.1.1 activate
> > >
> > >the result is that both ipv4 and ipv6 adjacencies come up.
> > >
> > >i checked the running config after and found the ipv6 address
> > >mapping in the
> > >
> > >config, but when i do a "show bgp ipv6 neighbor" it does not show
> > >the
> > >ipv6 address of the remote host, hence my question............
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on
> > >how to get there!
> > >http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
> > >
> > >___________________________________________________________________
> > >__ __ 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
> > >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> >http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> >
> >_____________________________________________________________________
> >__ Subscription information may be found at:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 14:43:40 GMT-3