nanog mailing list archives
Re: Link local for P-t-P links? (Was: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?)
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:32:37 -0600
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:33 PM, McCall, Gabriel <Gabriel.McCall () thyssenkrupp com> wrote:
Well, traceroutes and other ICMP functions would break. It is occasionally useful to be able to address a specific router interface from someplace other than its connected peer.
Unless your router always sources TTL exceeded from a loopback interface, breaking traceroute is a problem... breaking ICMP probing is even worse. I realize IPv6 is the utopian protocol we've all been waiting for, where routers failing, latency, packet loss, and hardware glitches are all going to be very distant memories, so the familiar troubleshooting tools can all go away and the minor performance/ status questions can be diagnosed using a SNMP status check, But in the unlikely event something did ever go slightly wrong, having link locals on routers would be a killer for the user. This definitely isn't better than using long prefixes on the P-t-P links. Regards, -- -JH
Current thread:
- Link local for P-t-P links? (Was: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?) Mike Jones (Nov 30)
- Re: Link local for P-t-P links? (Was: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?) Ray Soucy (Nov 30)
- RE: Link local for P-t-P links? (Was: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?) McCall, Gabriel (Nov 30)
- Re: Link local for P-t-P links? (Was: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?) Jimmy Hess (Nov 30)