IPv6 Addressing Question

[Mike Jones]

On 6 April 2013 11:30, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> > IPv6 routing protocols seem in some cases to exclusively use automatic
> link local addresses. Even for manual configuration, link locals deal with
> the ND exhaustion attack problem in the core quite nicely, while also
> simplifying address management.
> >
> > Are there practical reasons for global addresses on router interfaces?
>
> Pinging interface endpoints for debugging and monitoring, being able to
> see which interface is used in a traceroute, stuff like that. Routing
> protocols can work perfectly fine without global addresses, but netadmins
> have a harder time with just link locals :-)  But true: it is something
> that I have tested in the lab, and it does reduce the attack surface of the
> network a bit.
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
Hi,

Is it actually that useful to see 50% entered london from nyc on interface
nyc1-0.lon2.core and 50% on nyc1-1.lon2.core? I believe in theory the
egress interface is theoretically shown in traceroute which would be useful
if that actually happened, but i'm not sure the ingress interface you see
in practice is as useful once the packet has reached that hop?

Although I see your point about being able to ping eth3-0.lon2.core and
eth3-1.lon2.core from nyc and have each point to a specific link to check
them independently. I had considered that if you were testing this link you
would do it from nyc using eg fe80::2%lon1, however doing that without
logging in to the router is useful.

-Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20130406/4e71a2c2/attachment.htm>