The use of RIPng (was: Re: So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses"a problem anyway?)

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday 02 June 2010 12:50:54 am George Bonser wrote:

> What do you mean "were"?  If you own Brocade/Foundry
>  SuperX units and want to run v6 layer 3 you need to buy
>  special blades AND pay a premium license fee. Any
>  networks unlucky enough to have purchased any of that
>  kit over the past few years are suddenly feeling this
>  burning sensation on their seat if they are considering
>  v6 migration.

Those folk should have known better when purchasing kit, 
then.

We won't buy kit or code from vendors that won't (have plans 
to) support IPv6.

We won't buy transit from providers who won't support IPv6 
(including those that won't support a full v6 routing able).

I realize needs differ, but if we all voted with our 
feet/wallets re: IPv6, maybe we'll see the result we're all 
looking for.

>  I use RIPng only for "next hop"
>  information where I redistribute connected links from my
>  external peering connections among my BGP routers. 
>  Internally we use OSPF.

Why not set the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute to 'self' in your 
iBGP sessions? Or, worst case, run your peering interfaces 
in 'passive' mode in OSPF?

I would have avoid have multiple dynamic IGP's if I could.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100602/e0a26d56/attachment.bin