Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route tablesizeconsiderations

Tim Durack tdurack at gmail.com
Fri Mar 11 13:04:45 CST 2011


On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 1:55 PM, James Stahr <stahr at mailbag.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

For now I have allocated /64s per p-t-p, but I'm doing "ipv6 unnumbered
loopback0"

I quite like how the core route table looks. It also lets me avoid "The
Point to Point Wars" :-)

Maybe there will be a good reason to go back and slap globals on there, but
I've not been convinced yet.

-- 
Tim:>



More information about the NANOG mailing list