IPv6 anycast vs. proxy arp best practice? No need for IPv6

From: johngibson1541@yahoo.com
Date: Thu May 24 2007 - 16:11:58 ART

• Next message: spduo: "Re: path mtu discovery is considered legacy?"
• Previous message: ismail el-shalh: "IEWB V4.0 LAB 13 Task 3.3"
• Next in thread: John Gibson: "Re: IPv6 anycast vs. proxy arp best practice? No need for IPv6"
• Maybe reply: John Gibson: "Re: IPv6 anycast vs. proxy arp best practice? No need for IPv6"
• Maybe reply: Tarun Pahuja: "Re: IPv6 anycast vs. proxy arp best practice? No need for IPv6"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Ok, in proxy-arp , we configure all PCs to use an NIC
interface route as the default gateway.

In IPv6, we configure all PCs to use the anycast address
as the default gateway? Is this the best practice?

Do we not need IPv6 proxy Neighbor discovery? Which
one is the future? Which one is the best practice?

John

• Next message: spduo: "Re: path mtu discovery is considered legacy?"
• Previous message: ismail el-shalh: "IEWB V4.0 LAB 13 Task 3.3"
• Next in thread: John Gibson: "Re: IPv6 anycast vs. proxy arp best practice? No need for IPv6"
• Maybe reply: John Gibson: "Re: IPv6 anycast vs. proxy arp best practice? No need for IPv6"
• Maybe reply: Tarun Pahuja: "Re: IPv6 anycast vs. proxy arp best practice? No need for IPv6"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 01 2007 - 06:55:22 ART