[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       quagga-dev
Subject:    [quagga-dev 9470] Re: [DESIGN] zebra unnumbered IP address infrastructure
From:       JR Rivers <jrrivers () cumulusnetworks ! com>
Date:       2012-06-21 15:06:04
Message-ID: 336AF09F-F06E-414B-9A82-8D5DB4E1FCE5 () cumulusnetworks ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


Thanks for the clarification!

On Jun 21, 2012, at 8:02 AM, David Lamparter wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 07:40:22AM -0700, JR Rivers wrote:
>> PS- I may be off base, but there is a side benefit to this solution
>> that is not realized with IPv6 link local addresses... on broadcast
>> media, we don't need to define a subnetwork for each which is then
>> advertised in the routing protocol.
> 
> Link-local subnets are not advertised in the routing protocol, that's
> the point of being link-local :) ... relatedly, people who put
> global-scope IPv6 addresses on PtP router links deserve a high-five - in
> the face, with a chair.  *cough*
> 
> The IPv6 solution is much cleaner.  It doesn't give a frak about
> broadcast or PtP media.  You throw a fe80::/64 on the link and work with
> that.  After all this discussion about unnumbered, I kinda wish we could
> just drop IPv4 support and move to IPv6 ;)
> 
> 
> -David

_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net
http://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]