From: WorkerBee (ciscobee@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Nov 03 2006 - 02:37:14 ART
Another reason to map link-local is because IPv6 dynamic routing
protocol uses link-local
addresses as the next-hop reachability.
On 11/3/06, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
> You need to map whatever IPv6 addresses that you need to reach! In short,
> if you aren't going to both mapping all the addresses, why configure them on
> the interface? Decoration?
>
> Yup, map 'em all.
>
> HTH,
>
>
> Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE
> #153, CISSP, et al.
> CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
> IPExpert VP - Curriculum Development
> IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
> smorris@ipexpert.com
> http://www.ipexpert.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Heiko Liedtke
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 1:48 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: frame-relay map and IPV6?
>
> Dear group,
>
> I have a question about frame-relay map statements and IPv6.
>
> If I am asked to configure IPv6 over a frame-relay cloud, do I have to
> configure only the frame-relay map statements for site-local addresses or do
> I have to configure mapping statements for link-local addresses as well? (if
> nothing special mentioned in the question)
>
> In short: mapping statements only for the unique addresses or for unique and
> link-local?
>
> heiko
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 Dec 01 2006 - 08:05:45 ART