IPv6 in the enterprise

Mark Smith nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Wed Apr 20 20:06:48 CEST 2011


On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:42:51 +0200 (CEST)
sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:

> > > If you have to guide the end-user through finding the correct link-local interface to ping from, you might as well (and IMO easier) guide them through pinging a GUA, which you know in advance.
> > > 
> > 
> > Asking them to ping a GUA might be just as or if not harder. Imagine
> > asking somebody over the phone to type the following in -
> > 
> > ping6 2001:db8:f16d:2366::1
> > 
> > 
> > I'm curious in part because I'm pretty sure the IPv6 RFCs specify that
> > in most cases (BGP being the exception IIRC), next hop addresses are
> > specified as link-locals.
> 
> As long as the next hop is dynamic (from RA or similar), yes. However,
> we expect a significant number of (primarily) servers to have static
> addresses and a statically configured next hop, using a GUA.
> 

Who is in the "we" group your are talking about?


> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no



More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list