From: Ben (bmunyao@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2007 - 03:40:49 ART
Djerk
http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200707/msg00855.html
HTH
Ben
On 8/3/07, Donghai Zhang <zdh1207@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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