Hi, On 01/12/2011, at 12:45 PM, Mike Jones wrote: > Link-Local? > [snip] > Am I a complete idiot missing some obvious major issues with link > locals, or am i just the only one not thinking IPv4-think? Opinions? > :)
In a DC / hosting provider context, we're doing this. We started out assigning all of our PtP links (where we had /31s in the IPv4 world) IPv6 /64s and addressing using ::1 and ::2 with /127 masks from these /64s (to address potential ND table overflow concerns), but have now settled on using automatic link-local addresses instead. Our IGP propagates the routers' /128 loopbacks and these are used for routing user traffic. Having the IGP table only contain the /128 loopbacks, and none of the PtP networks is nice. :) On 01/12/2011, at 12:52 PM, Ray Soucy wrote: > I for one get really irritated when my traceroutes and pings are > broken and I need to troubleshoot things. ;-) But I guess something > has to give. You don't have to give up working traceroute / ping to use link-local on your PtPs. Our traffic routes through globally reachable router loopbacks which looks pretty in traceroutes, are pingable and doesn't break PMTUD. Tom
