Moin,
On Tue, 2025-04-08 at 12:31 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > I would consider this to be a bug. If the route-server knows (by > means of config) that my router wants to receive routes with v6 > nexthops only, because my router does not *have* a v4 address, it > must not send me something known-unreachable. Actually; The routers have a session with the extended nexthop capability set; That has fields for different NLRI <> Nexthop AFI combinations, and may very well allow the exchange of v4 NLRI over a v6 BGP session with v4 next-hops. > So while I find the idea interesting to use NDP to resolve v4 > addresses, I expect this to be highly problematic in practice > (because especially in the IXP scenario, you will find every vendor > that has ever built a "BGP capable" box, with every possible software > train, and none of these will actually handle NDP for v4). Well, implementations that do not support it will just ignore it, which... > Especially in an IXP scenario, the ones you might want to use it for > (neighbours that are on v4 only and have no v6 address) will not > support it. Because, if their code base is new enough, why not use > v6 NH right away... ...is kind of useful here, because it also gives an IX an easy way to do proxy "ARP" for those v4 members, without actually sending ARP that would be misunderstood by them. > Nah, don't go there, there be swamp dragons. Stop selling it to me, i am already on board! .oO( You should know by now that I have a very specific liking for networking dragons, especially the swamp-y kind ;-P ) With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M [email protected] Pronouns: he/him/his _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
