You need all to be part of the same Ethernet network. So if this UTM can act as
a bridge/switch you should be ok. Otherwise the RA broadcasts need to reach
your device so it guesses the network and add it's Mac address to the network
and make an ipv6 address.
I would say RA is a bit like DHCP i
That's my setup right now. The problem is the machine is not configuring its
IPv6 address with RA already turned on. I'm guessing that the flag set on
the UTM router advertisement messages is wrong. May I know the default flags
use on a cisco router? Thanks.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Franck
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, Rod James Bio wrote:
That's my setup right now. The problem is the machine is not configuring its
IPv6 address with RA already turned on. I'm guessing that the flag set on
the UTM router advertisement messages is wrong. May I know the default flags
use on a cisco router? Tha
I have seen layer 2 devices not forwarding IPv6 packets (while forwarding IPv4
packets)...
I would put a packet capture, and see if I see the RA packets coming from the
router.
On a Cisco router, RA is enabled by default and does not require any setting.
- Original Message -
From: "Rod
Pay attention to the special layer 2 multicast address for the RA packet.
On 10/15/10 3:21 PM, "Franck Martin" wrote:
>I have seen layer 2 devices not forwarding IPv6 packets (while forwarding
>IPv4 packets)...
>
>I would put a packet capture, and see if I see the RA packets coming from
>the ro
Got it now. The preferredlifetime should be less than the value of the
validlifetime option. Thanks BTW! :D
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, Rod James Bio wrote:
>
> That's my setup right now. The problem is the machine is not configuring
>> its
>
http://hen.cs.ucl.ac.uk/library/hardware/routers/procket/20fcs/routing_protocols/bgp.verify19.html
http://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/internet/ip/routing/bgp/operation/finite_state_model.shtml
http://www.cymru.com/Documents/barry2.pdf
I would check the latest version of the RFC and also the
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
/126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is
some rationale behind using a /126 instead of a /64.
Zaid
On 2010-10-15 21:26, Zaid Ali wrote:
> SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
> some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
> /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is
> some rationale behind using
http://www.google.com/search?q=nanog+126+64 would be a good place to
start...
(And I'm guessing you mean that /64 is "awfully large", not /126)
Scott.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
> some choose /
On 15/10/2010 20:26, Zaid Ali wrote:
> SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
> some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
> /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is
> some rationale behind using
Bahh had my head turned around and brain fried on a Friday. I was more
curious about /64 vs /126 from management perspective. Thanks everyone for
answering offline as well, I got my questions answered.
Zaid
On 10/15/10 12:26 PM, "Zaid Ali" wrote:
> SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple pr
BGP Update Report
Interval: 07-Oct-10 -to- 14-Oct-10 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS731526671 2.8% 398.1 -- COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES
S.A. ESP
2 - AS9476
This report has been generated at Fri Oct 15 21:11:45 2010 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:13 -0700
Zaid Ali wrote:
> SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
> some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
> /126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is
> some r
but then, can't we use ip unumbered on p2p links on cisco?
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Smith"
To: "Zaid Ali"
Cc: "NANOG list"
Sent: Saturday, 16 October, 2010 10:21:03 AM
Subject: Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:13 -07
> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:51:03 +1030
> From: Mark Smith
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:26:13 -0700
> Zaid Ali wrote:
>
> > SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
> > some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
> > /126 i
Does anyone have a working and responsive contact for the Media Sentry team
that send copyright notices?
I've been trying to contact them for about 6 months regarding an operational
issue using all the contact information in their emails, but they clearly don't
want any assistance because they
On October 16th, we lost a real friend and hero. Sigh
http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> On October 16th, we lost a real friend and hero. Sigh
>
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html
Amen. Long Live Jon Postel !!
On 10/15/10 8:38 PM, "Jorge Amodio" wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Rodney Joffe wrote:
>> On October 16th, we lost a real friend and hero. Sigh
>>
>> http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.html
>
> Amen. Long Live Jon Postel !!
>
And you can sometimes hear his comments http://w
Apparently I have replied to someone who has been banned from NANOG
unknowingly. My humble apologies to all, this person has been killfiled.
Andrew
23 matches
Mail list logo
