Hi,
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 12:17:45AM +0200, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
> This occurs, for example, if you have an RFC8950 session to a route-
> server at an IX and the route-server also sends you v4 routes with a
> _v4_ nexthop.
I would consider this to be a bug. If the route-server knows (by
means of config) that my router wants to receive routes with v6 nexthops
only, because my router does not *have* a v4 address, it must not
send me something known-unreachable.
So while I find the idea interesting to use NDP to resolve v4 addresses,
I expect this to be highly problematic in practice (because especially
in the IXP scenario, you will find every vendor that has ever built a
"BGP capable" box, with every possible software train, and none of these
will actually handle NDP for v4).
Especially in an IXP scenario, the ones you might want to use it for
(neighbours that are on v4 only and have no v6 address) will not support
it. Because, if their code base is new enough, why not use v6 NH
right away...
Nah, don't go there, there be swamp dragons.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla,
Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
