Hello all, Well, I have another issue here with regard to IPv6 addressing. The question says that we can use IPv4 compatible IPv6 addressing.
The P.G guide suggests using /96 subnet with leading zeros and last 32 bits being the IPv4 (in hex) which is not supported by the router. There is no way I can assign ipv6 address ::AC10:9602/96 to any router interface. for IP address 172.16.150.2 Well the solutions from the web site download adds one extra digit in front of the address which actually makes it a new address range in the IPV6 range and not really an IPv4 compatible address. I went through the doc and found that we can either use 6 to 4 translation range 2002::/16 or use ::FFFFA.B.C.D address range. At the moment only 6 to 4 seems to be working. All other ranges are not accepted at the routers I am not sure what would be the right range. Can sombody help clarify this issue little bit? Thanks On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:56 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would try configuring a route-map to set next hop on the other device, in > addition to reloading both devices. With v4, it can be corrupted updates, > but I don't recall seeing that specific error with v6 before. Other general > searches point to known bugs, but generally mention peering to a juniper or > zebra box. > > > > > > CSCdw83531 > > Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) updates may be corrupted and the following > message may be displayed when this symptom occurs: > > BGP-6-NEXTHOP: Invalid next hop (0.0.0.0) received from x.x.x.x: martian > next hop > > > > > > > > Marvin Greenlee, CCIE #12237 (R&S, SP, Sec) > Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > Fax: +1.810.454.0130 > > Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger RPF > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:34 AM > > To: 'OSL CCIE Routing and Switching Lab Exam' > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] LAB26: IPv6 Part again.... > > > > Hi Marvin, > > > > Thanks a lot, good that you see it in the same way. Just one thing. Can you > give me an explanation or a tipp what it is about the > > *Jun 19 09:17:52.643: %BGP-6-NEXTHOP: Invalid next hop (0.0.0.0) received > from ::1:AC11:1902: martian next hop > > error message? To me, my configuration works fine but why was this message > there… > > > > regards > > > > Roger > > > > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Juni 2008 15:05 > An: 'OSL CCIE Routing and Switching Lab Exam' > Betreff: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] LAB26: IPv6 Part again.... > > > > Asking the proctor questions isn't a bad thing. It's better to get > clarification than to make potentially incorrect assumptions. > > > > Some things are definitely not as clear as they could be. If you're not > specifically told how to establish reachability, then adding a network to a > routing protocol would be acceptable. > > > > Just because a section says to redistribute from RIP to OSPF, it doesn't > mean you can't also redistribute from OSPF to RIP, assuming that is not > expressly prohibited. > > > > As far as reachability is concerned, some practice lab writers tend to go > overboard when using static routes or default originate. In my opinion, > they should only be used as a last resort. Other than a situation like an > OSPF stub area (or odr), there usually is not any reason to send a 0/0 route > to get the desired reachability. > > > > Version 10 clears up a lot of tasks like this one. > > > > Marvin Greenlee, CCIE #12237 (R&S, SP, Sec) > Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > Fax: +1.810.454.0130 > > Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger RPF > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:51 AM > To: 'OSL CCIE Routing and Switching Lab Exam' > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] LAB26: IPv6 Part again.... > > > > Hi ipexpert, > > I'm sorry to say that, but the Ipv6 part in LAB26 is very unclear and the > instructions are to "rare". If the real lab would be like this, I would have > to sit beside the proctor to ask questions all the time...hehehe > > 1. eBGP between R2 and R8. The PG uses a static route on R8, which > violates the initial task. How should we get the R7-R8 network into OSPFv3 > to bring eBGP up? Well, since not explicitly forbidden, I configured OSPF > area 567 on that link. Maybe a ipv6ip tunnel would also work. BGP comes up > but I get the following error: > > R8(config-router)# > > *Jun 19 09:17:52.643: %BGP-6-NEXTHOP: Invalid next hop (0.0.0.0) received > from ::1:AC11:1902: martian next hop > > Why that? I can reach the next hop and I can also ping the ipv6 address of > the ebgp neighbor...I have no idea > > 2. On R6 we need to redistribute from Ipv6 RIP to OSPFv3, the same on > R2. I guess the idea is to reach from RIP on R6-R9 the networks on RIP R1. > Well, since we only have to do one way redistribution this does not work. > The PG originates on R6 a default route (general task says not to use > default routes), so RIP knows the way out bot on R2 there is nothing like > this and it wouldnt work. We would also have to generate a default route > into RIP. Or we could do two way redistribution, but would this violate the > task??? > > I really hope that this ipv6 stuff will be more clear in version 10! The > rest of this lab is pretty cool, only the ipv6 part makes it very > confusing... > > regards > > Roger
