JUNOS forwards IPv6 link-local packets

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sat Apr 28 03:09:28 CDT 2012


We kind of needed them in IPv4, though not universally.

At least in IPv6, we have them.

Owen

On Apr 27, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> you know what I love? address selection rules, or rather the fact that
> we have to have them in this new ip protocol :(
> 
> bugs and code problems and operational headaches and filters and ... :(
> 
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
>> On 4/27/2012 11:20 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> 
>>> Once upon a time, Jack Bates<jbates at brightok.net>  said:
>>>> 
>>>> fe80::/65 discard
>>>> fe80:0:0:0:8000::/65 discard
>>>> 
>>>> More specifics rule out over connected any day.
>>> 
>>> That would also kill any legitimate link-local traffic though.
>> 
>> 
>> Perhaps. I'm actually curious on that, as the rules for routing to
>> link-local are very specialized. It might flag on uRPF for local traffic,
>> but that can be overcome with a fail filter. Sending out from the RE could
>> likely ignore the route, as it has to send to specific interfaces. Receiving
>> on interfaces that don't have uRPF should still work as well.
>> 
>> It's a theory and would have to be tested.
>> 
>> Jack
>> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list