From: Sami (sy1977@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Jul 09 2006 - 19:11:34 ART
Could some one paste configuration of a working 6to 4 Auto tunnel with
multiple sites. I am confused how you map ipv4 address automatically in IPv6
address
Thanks
On 7/9/06, srdja blagojevic <srdja1@pexim.co.yu> wrote:
>
> Roberto, Tony,
>
> Thank you for your responses! I could not find anything like neighbor
> statement for RIPng, so I thought that I was missing something here.
>
> Rgds,
> Srdja
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Paterra [mailto:apaterra@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 02:20
> To: srdja blagojevic
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: RIPng over IPv6 6to4 tunnel
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:47 ART