From: Heiko Liedtke (heiko.liedtke@gmx.net)
Date: Sat Nov 04 2006 - 07:45:52 ART
Pierre-Alex,
I think on the three other network types I dont need any additional
mapping statements.
In the IPv6 routing table I can see the output interface on which the
IPv6 packets have to leave the
router in order to reach the destination.
On point-to-point links, there is no other choice for the packet when
leaving the router;
there should be the destination on the other end.
On multiaccess segements (ethernet) the router has to know the
layer 2 address of the destination router, so in IPv4 there is ARP and
in IPv6
there is something similar. (neighbor discovery? not sure. shame on me).
As in most cases we have to disable invarp on frame-relay, there is need
to do
the layer3/layer2 mappings on our own.
That makes now more sense to me than before...
To answer your question:
- frame-relay point-to-point interface ---> Not neccessary
- serial link (hdlc) ---> not neccessary
- ethernet segement ---> Not necessary
Regards
Heiko
Pierre-Alex GUANEL schrieb:
>Heiko, you are welcome!
>
>Now try to predict / explain if a mapping is necessary in the following
>cases:
>
>- frame-relay point-to-point interface
>
>- serial link (hdlc)
>
>- ethernet segement
>
>Regards,
>
>Pierre-Alex
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Heiko Liedtke" <heiko.liedtke@gmx.net>
>To: "Pierre-Alex GUANEL" <paguanel@hotmail.com>
>Cc: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 4:11 PM
>Subject: Re: frame-relay map and IPV6?
>
>
>
>
>>hi pierre-alex,
>>
>>thanks for your excelent help! i was able to lab the thing out
>>on myself. without the mapping of the link-local address, i am not able
>>to reach any of
>>the rip learned destinations.
>>now i see the point with the mapping statements in ipv6!
>>
>>Great help!
>>
>>heiko
>>
>>
>>
>>Pierre-Alex GUANEL schrieb:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Heiko,
>>>
>>>Here is an experiment that may answer some of your question(s):
>>>
>>>-----------
>>>
>>>here is the setup
>>>
>>>!r2
>>>
>>>int ser 0/0
>>>frame map ipv6 2001:12::1 201 br
>>>ipv6 addr 2001:12::2/64
>>>ipv6 rip lab13 enable
>>>
>>>interface FastEthernet0/0
>>>ipv6 address 2001:CC1E:1:2::/64 eui-64
>>>ipv6 rip lab13 enable
>>>
>>>!r1
>>>
>>>ipv6 routing
>>>
>>>int ser 0/0
>>>frame map ipv6 2001:12::2 102 br
>>>ipv6 addr 2001:12::1/64
>>>ipv6 rip lab13 enable
>>>
>>>-------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>! rip multicast is sent using FE80:
>>>
>>>
>>>Rack1R1#
>>>*Mar 1 00:31:45.090: RIPng: Sending multicast update on Serial0/0 for
>>>
>>>
>lab13
>
>
>>>*Mar 1 00:31:45.090: src=FE80::2D0:58FF:FE58:D960
>>>*Mar 1 00:31:45.090: dst=FF02::9 (Serial0/0)
>>>*Mar 1 00:31:45.090: sport=521, dport=521, length=32
>>>*Mar 1 00:31:45.090: command=2, version=1, mbz=0, #rte=1
>>>*Mar 1 00:31:45.090: tag=0, metric=1, prefix=2001:12::/64
>>>
>>>
>>>Rack1R2# 1 00:34:12.931: tag=0, metric=1,
>>>prefix=2001:CC1E:1:23::2/127
>>>*Mar 1 00:34:12.935: RIPng: Sending multicast update on FastEthernet0/0
>>>
>>>
>for
>
>
>>>lab13
>>>*Mar 1 00:34:12.935: src=FE80::206:D7FF:FE27:1E0
>>>*Mar 1 00:34:12.935: dst=FF02::9 (FastEthernet0/0)
>>>*Mar 1 00:34:12.935: sport=521, dport=521, length=72
>>>*Mar 1 00:34:12.935: command=2, version=1, mbz=0, #rte=3
>>>*Mar 1 00:34:12.935: tag=0, metric=1, prefix=2001:12::/64
>>>*Mar 1 00:34:12.935: tag=0, metric=1, prefix=2001:CC1E:1:2::/64
>>>*Mar 1 00:34:12.935: tag=0, metric=1,
>>>
>>>
>prefix=2001:CC1E:1:23::2/127
>
>
>>>Rack1R2#
>>>
>>>----------
>>>
>>>! The rip multicast from r2 to r1 (and vice versa) because of the
>>>
>>>
>broadcast
>
>
>>>statement on the
>>>frame-relay map. But notice that the next hop to the ipv6 rip learned
>>>
>>>
>routes
>
>
>>>is
>>>the FE80 address.
>>>
>>>
>>>Rack1R1#sh ipv6 route
>>>IPv6 Routing Table - 6 entries
>>>Codes: C - Connected, L - Local, S - Static, R - RIP, B - BGP
>>> U - Per-user Static route
>>> I1 - ISIS L1, I2 - ISIS L2, IA - ISIS interarea, IS - ISIS summary
>>> O - OSPF intra, OI - OSPF inter, OE1 - OSPF ext 1, OE2 - OSPF ext
>>>
>>>
>2
>
>
>>> ON1 - OSPF NSSA ext 1, ON2 - OSPF NSSA ext 2
>>>C 2001:12::/64 [0/0]
>>> via ::, Serial0/0
>>>L 2001:12::1/128 [0/0]
>>> via ::, Serial0/0
>>>R 2001:CC1E:1:2::/64 [120/2]
>>> via FE80::206:D7FF:FE27:1E0, Serial0/0
>>>R 2001:CC1E:1:23::2/127 [120/2]
>>> via FE80::206:D7FF:FE27:1E0, Serial0/0
>>>L FE80::/10 [0/0]
>>> via ::, Null0
>>>L FF00::/8 [0/0]
>>> via ::, Null0
>>>
>>>
>>>---------
>>>
>>>
>>>!When I send a ping, the ping fails, because the packet is sent to the
>>>
>>>
>next
>
>
>>>hop address
>>>in FE80 which does not have a mapping frame-relay.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Rack1R1#ping ipv6 2001:CC1E:1:23::2
>>>
>>>Type escape sequence to abort.
>>>Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 2001:CC1E:1:23::2, timeout is 2
>>>
>>>
>seconds:
>
>
>>>*Mar 1 00:37:38.293: Serial0/0:Encaps failed--no map entry link
>>>
>>>
>79(IPV6).
>
>
>>>*Mar 1 00:37:40.296: Serial0/0:Encaps failed--no map entry link
>>>
>>>
>79(IPV6).
>
>
>>>*Mar 1 00:37:42.300: Serial0/0:Encaps failed--no map entry link
>>>
>>>
>79(IPV6).
>
>
>>>*Mar 1 00:37:44.303: Serial0/0:Encaps failed--no map entry link
>>>
>>>
>79(IPV6).
>
>
>>>*Mar 1 00:37:46.302: Serial0/0:Encaps failed--no map entry link
>>>
>>>
>79(IPV6).
>
>
>>>Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------
>>>
>>>
>>>! Now I put a mapping on R1 and I will be able to ping succeffully as the
>>>packet
>>>are sent on the dlci, amd R2 as a return path to the 2001: address which
>>>
>>>
>is
>
>
>>>the source address of the packets.
>>>
>>>
>>>Rack1R1(config-if)#frame map ipv6 FE80::206:D7FF:FE27:1E0 102 br
>>>
>>>Rack1R1#ping ipv6 2001:CC1E:1:23::2
>>>
>>>
>>>Rack1R1#
>>>*Mar 1 00:40:47.175: Serial0/0(o): dlci 102(0x1861), pkt type
>>>
>>>
>0x86DD(IPV6),
>
>
>>>datagramsize 10
>>>4
>>>*Mar 1 00:40:47.179: Serial0/0(i): dlci 102(0x1861), pkt type 0x86DD,
>>>datagramsize 104
>>>*Mar 1 00:40:47.183: Serial0/0(o): dlci 102(0x1861), pkt type
>>>
>>>
>0x86DD(IPV6),
>
>
>>>datagramsize 10
>>>4
>>>*Mar 1 00:40:47.187: Serial0/0(i): dlci 102(0x1861), pkt type 0x86DD,
>>>datagramsize 104
>>>*Mar 1 00:40:47.187: Serial0/0(o): dlci 102(0x1861), pkt type
>>>
>>>
>0x86DD(IPV6),
>
>
>>>datagramsize 10
>>>4
>>>
>>>
>>>Rack1R2#sh loggin
>>>
>>>*Mar 1 00:42:46.507: ICMPv6: Received ICMPv6 packet from 2001:12::1,
>>>
>>>
>type
>
>
>>>128
>>>*Mar 1 00:42:46.507: ICMPv6: Received echo request from 2001:12::1
>>>*Mar 1 00:42:46.507: ICMPv6: Sending echo reply to 2001:12::1
>>>*Mar 1 00:42:46.515: ICMPv6: Received ICMPv6 packet from 2001:12::1,
>>>
>>>
>type
>
>
>>>128
>>>*Mar 1 00:42:46.515: ICMPv6: Received echo request from 2001:12::1
>>>*Mar 1 00:42:46.515: ICMPv6: Sending echo reply to 2001:12::1
>>>*Mar 1 00:42:46.523: ICMPv6: Received ICMPv6 packet from 2001:12::1,
>>>
>>>
>type
>
>
>>>128
>>>*Mar 1 00:42:46.523: ICMPv6: Received echo reques
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----
>>>
>>>! To be able to ping from both side R1 and R2, you need to have a FE80
>>>mapping on R2
>>>too
>>>
>>>For a best practice, I would put the broadcast statement only one one
>>>
>>>
>frame
>
>
>>>map.
>>>I would put it on the FE80 address, since all outgoing traffic is sent to
>>>
>>>
>to
>
>
>>>this address
>>>and not put broadcast statement on the 2001: address.
>>>
>>>
>>>HTH
>>>
>>>Pierre-Alex
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
>>>To: "'Heiko Liedtke'" <heiko.liedtke@gmx.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:09 PM
>>>Subject: RE: frame-relay map and IPV6?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>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