Daniel Verlouw wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 12:51 +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
Link-local IP's are fe80::/10, so I planned to use fe80::/16 in my
network just by replacing first 16 bits of our public IP's.
Can anyone say whether this is bad or wrong idea? :)
VRRPv6 (on Junos at least) requires you to statically configure
link-local addresses. We use the following scheme for each subnet:
fe80::<group id>:1/64 = virtual
fe80::2/64 = first router
fe80::3/64 = second router
(all done using a commit script btw, so no addt'l manual labour
involved)
We don't use HSRP (yet), but I guess you could employ this in an HSRP
environment as well and just tell -all- your customers to point to
fe80::X:1 as default gateway.
Yes, but I wanted to have the LL addresses unique in our whole network.
I can take group id, but what if you move a customer from one router to
another and the given hsrp group id is already occupied? Yes, a solution
would be to have hsrp groups totally unique in our network, but AFAIK
the group id can be only 0-255, so it is way too little.
I planed to use sth unique and I wanted to make link-local out of the
main v6 of the interface.
Why did they make v6 so complicated? What is wrong with public IP's on
vrrp/hsrp?
--
Grzegorz Janoszka
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
