Just reporting what happend. I'll reproduce it when I get back home.
%
% So your saying this happens with router-renumbering? It should not with
% ND. ND should not alter a peer routers address. So still why is this an
% ND problem. ND and Router Renumbering are two distinct but compatible
% specs?
%
% thanks trying to understand,
%
% /jim
%
% On Tue, 1 May 2001, Bill Manning wrote:
%
% > %
% > % Hi Bill,
% > %
% > % > % With all due respect IPv6 is far superior to IPv4 for renumbering.
% > % > % Have you looked in depth at Neighbor Discovery, Stateless
% > % > % Autoconfiguration, and Router Renumbering RFCs. Then put them all
% > % > % together. Nothing I mean Nothing exists like this in IPv4.
% > % >
% > % > And it was hell to fix. Six routers sharing a broadcast domain.
% > % > All running ND & all running RA. Which Address do the BGP peer
% > % > on?
% > % > The Fix? Turn off ND & RA and statically configure the interfaces.
% > % >
% > %
% > % Why is BGP affected by ND and RAs. ND is not for Router-to-Router
% > % communications?
% > %
% > % /jim
% >
% > BGP is bound between two IP addresses. When the IP addresses change
% > the BGP peering is lost.
% >
% >
% > --
% > --bill
% >
%
--
--bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
