Re: ipv6 - link local uses

Thanks again Brandon

Aaron

On Mar 23, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Brandon Carroll <brandon.j.carroll_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Period. Every interface gets a link local with the same prefix and mask.
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 23, 2011, at 1:02 PM, "Aaron" <aaron1_at_gvtc.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Brandon. Not routable period? Or not routable on the global
>> internet (much link private ip's 1918 aren't routable on the global
>> internet)? Please clarify
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brandon Carroll [mailto:brandon.j.carroll_at_gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:56 PM
>> To: Aaron
>> Cc: <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
>> Subject: Re: ipv6 - link local uses
>>
>> Link local addresses are not routable so you need both.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2011, at 12:44 PM, "Aaron" <aaron1_at_gvtc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I understand ipv6 has some very interesting and very different things from
>>> ipv4.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One of which is this link-local business (fe80::/64 as I recall), seems to
>>> be an automatic ipv6 address on pretty much every single ipv6 product that
>>> I've laid eyes on.cisco, linux, windows.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Question, is it possible, furthermore, is it a best practice to run purely
>>> link local subnets between routers? OR must I configure real-world ipv6
>>> address (I think called aggregatable global ucast) between my routers ?
>> ..
>>> I would understand the need for agg global's on customer facing interfaces
>>> but on the router to router links...that's where I'm wondering.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Wed Mar 23 2011 - 16:29:51 ART