Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route tablesizeconsiderations
stahr at mailbag.com
Fri Mar 11 12:55:33 CST 2011
At 01:33 AM 3/11/2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>On Mar 10, 2011, at 11:22 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> Frankly, unless you have parallel links, there isn't a definite
> need to even number PtoP links for IPv6.
> >> Every thing you need to do with an interface specific address on
> a PtoP link can be done with link local.
> > Which is why IP unnumbered caught on so well in IPv4-land, heh?
>There's a HUGE difference between IP unnumbered and link-local.
>Frankly, absent parallel links, there was a lot to be said for IP unnumbered
>and I think that if people had better understood the implications of where and
>when it was a good vs. bad idea and tied it properly to loopbacks instead
>of $RANDOM_INTERFACE, it might have caught on better.
Is anyone else considering only using link local for their PtoP
links? I realized while deploying our IPv6 infrastructure that
OSPFv3 uses the link-local address in the routing table and than the
global address, so if I want to have a routing table which makes
sense, I need to statically assign a global address AND the
link-local address. Then I realized, why even assign a global in the
first place? Traceroutes replies end up using the loopback. BGP will
use loopbacks. So is there any obvious harm in this approach that I'm missing?
More information about the NANOG