LOLOLOL.
“%VXLAN-4-IPV6_UNDERLAY_UNSUPPORTED: VXLAN encapsulation using IPv6 VTEP
addresses is not supported on this platform”
Guess it’s going to be a non-issue for me, at this time, since VxLAN was the
main reason for this entire setup…
Thanks for all the responses!
-Adam
Adam Thompson
Consult
hey,
I did an L3VPN over SRv6 test recently using IS-IS as the IGP. I
thought it was quite cool that I didn't configure any IPv6 addressing
at all in the core... simply enabled v6 on interfaces and allowed
FE80 LL's to run... IS-IS neighbored up... then added a mp-ibgp v6
loopback (rfc 4193) to
I did an L3VPN over SRv6 test recently using IS-IS as the IGP. I thought it
was quite cool that I didn't configure any IPv6 addressing at all in the
core... simply enabled v6 on interfaces and allowed FE80 LL's to run... IS-IS
neighbored up... then added a mp-ibgp v6 loopback (rfc 4193) to the
On 5/4/21 17:34, Saku Ytti wrote:
I don't think you are, I read like an opinion piece so it's inherently
not right or wrong. I don't have the same experience and I consider
forcing LLA a blessing in limiting attack vectors and I personally
don't see downsides as all addresses are gibbering to
On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 18:28, Adam Thompson wrote:
> I don't believe APIPA and Link-Local are precisely equivalent, but I agree
> it's the closest thing IPv4 has. IS-IS/IPv4 would
Agreed, APIPA is using link-local, but they're not the same. APIPA is
an application or process which needs the use
I don't believe APIPA and Link-Local are precisely equivalent, but I agree it's
the closest thing IPv4 has. IS-IS/IPv4 would presumably use APIPA addresses if
nothing else were assigned to the interface, based on my reading of the RFC.
I'm unsure what the RFC authors think should happen in a H
On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 18:15, Adam Thompson wrote:
Hey Adam,
> I don't see any rationale in RFC 5308 for why the HELLO packet may only
> contain the LLA - does anyone know/remember why? (I'm hoping that
> understanding the rationale will make this an easier pill to swallow.)
> Obviously this
Thank you, both!
...that kinda sucks, though.
I don't see any rationale in RFC 5308 for why the HELLO packet may only contain
the LLA - does anyone know/remember why? (I'm hoping that understanding the
rationale will make this an easier pill to swallow.) Obviously this
behaviour/requirement
8 matches
Mail list logo
