From: Serhat Aslan (serhatworks@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2007 - 00:50:04 ART
For the frame-relay broadcast statement:
AFAIK, there was a threat in the GS; CISCO ASET lab scripts failed when
he/she use the frame-relay-broadcast in the global unicast instead of
link-local.
Serhat Aslan
On 8/3/07, Djerk Geurts <djerk.geurts@nl.easynet.net> wrote:
>
> From
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios123/123cgcr/
> ipv6_c/v6addres.htm#wp1050198
>
> IPv6 Frame Relay PVC Mapping Configuration-Point-to-Multipoint
> Interface: Example
>
> In the following example, the same three nodes (Router A, Router B, and
> Router C) from the previous example make up a fully meshed network and
> each node is configured with two PVCs (which provide an individual
> connection to each of the other two nodes). However, the two PVCs on
> each node in the following example are configured on a single interface
> (serial 3, serial 5, and serial 10, respectively), which makes each
> interface a point-to-multipoint interface. Therefore, explicit mappings
> are required between the link-local and global IPv6 addresses of each
> interface on all three nodes and the DLCI (DLCI 17, 18, and 19) of the
> PVC used to reach the addresses.
>
> Router A Configuration
> interface Serial 3
> encapsulation frame-relay
> ipv6 address 2001:0DB8:2222:1044::46/64
> frame-relay map ipv6 FE80::E0:F727:E400:A 17 broadcast
> frame-relay map ipv6 FE80::60:3E47:AC8:8 19 broadcast
> frame-relay map ipv6 2001:0DB8:2222:1044::72 19
> frame-relay map ipv6 2001:0DB8:2222:1044::73 17
>
> **
>
> Here they use the broadcast only on the link-local, when using routing
> protocols shouls I even add the broadcast statement to the unicast
> mapping? RIP works without the link-local mapping so what is the point
> and why?
>
> Any input welcome...
>
> Djerk
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Djerk Geurts
> > Sent: vrijdag 3 augustus 2007 4:46
> > To: 'groupstudy'
> > Subject: IPv6 routing on FR
> >
> > For RIPng, when defining the map statements for ipv6. Is it
> > best to use link-local or global-unicast addresses?
> >
> > Once I added the broadcast statement to my unicast address FR
> > maps the rip routing worked. But I see examples using the
> > link local addressing in the FR map statements. What
> > reasoning would there be to choose either one?
> >
> > Personally I'd prefer the unicast one as it's universal (if
> > not using eui-64). When using eui-64 addressing it doesn't
> > really matter that much, or does it?
> >
> > --
> > Djerk
> > www.djerk.nl
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:09 ART