%
% >> 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?
%
% from the above I don't know if Bill have autoconfigured routers...
% did you?
Yes. This involved a number of boxes. (see the recent thread on
host/router)
% anyway, i guess there's a separate issue - what is the best address
% to be used for BGP peering at random IXes. is it what you are
% talking about?
Not really. Although there is discussion on what constitutes
appropriate RIR policy for IX use.
% my bet is that link-local address (for tcp endpoint address) has
% the best resistance against renumber or other events, however,
% there are implementations that cannot do this. also it may conflict
% with Francis' BGP4+ RFC (but the RFC is not too clear about separation
% between tcp/179 endpoint address, and nexthop values - at least for me)
Too many problems there. IX'en really need global space.
% there are people using addresses that are not reachable from outside,
% as i have pointed out in the following. PAIX is using a /32 got from
% ISI, however, the prefix used at PAIX is not reachable from outside
% if we filter routes based on 6bone routing guideline.
% not sure if it is a real problem or not.
The 6bone routing guideline is oriented toward ISPs, as are the RIR
delegations practices. IX'en are different than ISPs and so the ISP
rules applied to IX'en often break.
%
% To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
% Subject: reachability issue with 3ffe:80a::/32 (PAIX IX segment)
% From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
% Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:13:59 +0900
% Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
% Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
%
% itojun
%
--
--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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
