From: Donghai Zhang (zdh1207@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2007 - 01:49:14 ART
Rip needs multicast 224.0.0.9(in IPv6,it's xxxx9) so as to populates its
routing information. IPv6 only uses Link local address to do this,so you
need only map link local address using the broadcast. In addition, multicast
address like this have the TTL for only just 1. Only the next hop device
have the chance to receive the message.I'm not so sure,but that's the
point....
2007/8/3, Serhat Aslan <serhatworks@gmail.com>:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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