From: Tony Paterra (apaterra@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 08 2006 - 21:19:46 ART
Srdja,
Interesting problem... From you've mentioned I think you already have
the answer... 6to4 tunnels require that they start with a 2002::/16
address with the IPv4 address embedded in the suffix (so it can
determing the IPv4 tunnel destination). With RIPng multicasting it's
updates out to neighbors this won't automatically create the tunnels.
Something to try would be to see if RIPng supports unicast
advertisements (similar to the neighbor statement in EIGRP or RIP for
IPv4).
From my experience, all the 6to4 examples I've seen use static routing
for the 2002::/16 address space out the tunnel interface.
On 7/8/06, srdja blagojevic <srdja1@pexim.co.yu> wrote:
> Group,
>
> Is it possible to run RIPng over 6to4 tunnel?
>
> RIPng is working fine over Manual and GRE/IP tunnel, but I can not make it
> work over 6to4 tunnel. Tunnel itself is fine (I can ping from one end to
> another). Only difference (from manual and gre/ip), that I can see, is that
> 6to4 tunnel is point to multipoint (and not piont to point) by its nature,
> so there is no destination address in which musticast RIPng packets can be
> encapsulated. As I understood, communication between tunnel endpionts is
> over IPV4 infrastructure, and only addresses that have format
> 2002:IPV4-address::/48 can be found through 6to4 tunnel interface. Is this
> mean that RIPng packet destinated to FF02::9 address can not be send over
> 6to4 tunnel because we do not know to which tunel destination (IPv4 address)
> we have to send it?
>
> Did anyone else try this before? Am I missing something here?
>
> rgds,
> srdja
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
-- Tony Paterra apaterra@gmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:47 ART