[address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Tue Nov 8 15:18:32 CET 2022
* Nick Hilliard > this is kinda the problem with RFC 5549, no? I.e. it deals only with > signaling rather than transport. So even if it's deployed, the IXP > will still need to provide ipv4 addresses for transport purposes. Apart from the BGP session itself (which supports multi-AF), the addresses are just needed for resolution of the next-hop layer-2 address. There's no real reason that address needs to be IPv4 and resolved via ARP, it can be resolved just as well with IPv6 ND, as I understand it. For example, on Linux, you can program the FIB in this way: $ ip route add 192.0.2.0/24 via inet6 fe80::1 dev eth0 The 'eth0' interface does not need any IPv4 addresses assigned. Obviously the major router vendors need to build in corresponding capability in their BGP software for IPv6-only IX-es to be a realistic proposition. I have no idea if they have. Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IXP pool lower boundary of assignments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]