[Xorp-users] R: RE: OSPFv3 with /128 prefixes
maxd at inwind.it
maxd at inwind.it
Mon Jun 27 09:10:31 PDT 2011
Thanks Patricio for your help. I tried to modify my configuration file
according to your suggestion, but I still experience the same behaviour....
Massimiliano
>----Messaggio originale----
>Da: p_latini at hotmail.com
>Data: 26/06/2011 19.11
>A: <maxd at inwind.it>, <xorp-users at xorp.org>
>Ogg: RE: [Xorp-users] OSPFv3 with /128 prefixes
>
>In my case I had to define the link local addreses on the interface
>definitions to get ospfv3 working.
>
>Hope it helps for you
>
> interface eth1 {
> description: ""
> disable: false
> discard: false
> unreachable: false
> management: false
> vif eth1 {
> disable: false
> address FD00:0000:0000:FF01::1 {
> prefix-length: 64
> disable: false
> }
> address fe80::211:11ff:fe22:3333 {
> prefix-length: 64
> disable: false
> }
> }
> }
>
>BTW, FEC0/16 is deperecated as sire local address, now FC00/8 or FD00/8
>should be used in site local configurations.
>
>Patricio
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org [mailto:xorp-users-bounces at xorp.org] On
>Behalf Of maxd at inwind.it
>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 2:02 PM
>To: xorp-users at xorp.org
>Subject: [Xorp-users] OSPFv3 with /128 prefixes
>
>Hi,
>I have a set of Linux nodes connected by Ethernet links. On each link just
>two nodes are attached, and each node may have more than one Ethernet
>interface and hence be connected to more than one node. As a result, the
>network has a partial mesh topology. XORP is installed on each node, and
>configured to execute the ospfv3 protocol. Each interface of a node has 2
>IPv6 addresses: a link-local (fe80) and a site-local address (fec0). The
>site-local address has a
>/128 prefix length.
>This /128 addresses are correctly advertised, and entries for these "single-
>host networks" are created in all the nodes of the network but the peer node
>connected to that interface. To make an example, if I have node A and node B
>connected together, node A will not have an entry in its routing table for
>the
>/128 address on the interface of node B. Nevertheless, if node B had an
>additional interface (connected to a node C), the address of this additional
>interface would show up in the routing table of A. Is this normal? Notice
>that the exact same configuration works fine with QUAGGA.
>Any idea? I am also providing in the following my (very simple) xorp.conf
>file
>
>Thanks a lot!
>Massimiliano
>
>
>
>interfaces {
> interface eth0 {
> default-system-config
> }
> interface eth1 {
> default-system-config
> }
> interface eth2 {
> default-system-config
> }
> interface eth3 {
> default-system-config
> }
>}
>
>fea {
> unicast-forwarding6 {
> disable: false
> }
>}
>
>protocols {
> ospf6 0 {
> router-id: 0.0.0.1 #obviously, it changes for each node!
> area 0.0.0.0 {
> area-type: "normal"
> interface eth0 {
> vif eth0 {
> }
> }
> interface eth1 {
> vif eth1 {
> }
> }
> interface eth2 {
> vif eth2 {
> }
> }
> interface eth3 {
> vif eth3 {
> }
> }
> }
> }
>}
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xorp-users mailing list
>Xorp-users at xorp.org
>http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users
>
>
More information about the Xorp-users
mailing list