From: Roberto Fernandez (rofernandez@us.telefonica.com)
Date: Sat Jul 08 2006 - 20:59:53 ART
Srdja,
Well, I haven't tried it all yet, but theory says:
(Please anyone correct me where I may be wrong)
...they treat the IPv4 infrastructure as a virtual nonbroadcast
multiaccess (NBMA) link. The IPv4 address embedded in the IPv6 address
is used to find the other end of the automatic tunnel.
As this will supposedly rule the native multicast RIPng out. We have
would have to turn into unicast adjacencies by means of the "neighbor"
command. Then I haven't seen the neighbor command for IPv6RIP. Thus
maybe EIGRP or OSPF (which do have neighbor command) would work under
the automatic 6to4 tunnels. BGP should work without issues.
In practice labs I've seen, however, static routing has been used at all
times, to communicate distance IPv6 domains; by means of automatic
tunnels. Since the goal of using IPv6 auto-tunnels is usually "not
having to add specific configuration regarding the remote end-points", a
static route for the whole space 2002::/16 towards the tunnel, looks a
good solution.
Best Regards,
Roberto
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
srdja blagojevic
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 4:10 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RIPng over IPv6 6to4 tunnel
Group,
Is it possible to run RIPng over 6to4 tunnel?
RIPng is working fine over Manual and GRE/IP tunnel, but I can not make
it
work over 6to4 tunnel. Tunnel itself is fine (I can ping from one end to
another). Only difference (from manual and gre/ip), that I can see, is
that
6to4 tunnel is point to multipoint (and not piont to point) by its
nature,
so there is no destination address in which musticast RIPng packets can
be
encapsulated. As I understood, communication between tunnel endpionts is
over IPV4 infrastructure, and only addresses that have format
2002:IPV4-address::/48 can be found through 6to4 tunnel interface. Is
this
mean that RIPng packet destinated to FF02::9 address can not be send
over
6to4 tunnel because we do not know to which tunel destination (IPv4
address)
we have to send it?
Did anyone else try this before? Am I missing something here?
rgds,
srdja
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:47 ART