[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 32.1.0.0/16 and v6 collateral damage

To: Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com>
Subject: Re: 32.1.0.0/16 and v6 collateral damage
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 06:35:26 -0800
Cc: v6ops <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <7F446300-2A55-4412-9DB0-583E6C237BB6@dragondata.com>
References: <7F446300-2A55-4412-9DB0-583E6C237BB6@dragondata.com>

On 4 dec 2007, at 19:04, Kevin Day wrote:

Has anyone else seen any breakage involving 32.1.0.0/16 (2001::) or32.2.0.0/16 (2002::)? Does anyone know if McLeod suffered anyproblems from 3ffe:: breaking 63.254.0.0/16 ?

I saw something a bit like this once. The prefixes were the normalIPv4 table, but the next hop addresses were something like 32.x.x.x or35.x.x.x IIRC. Turned out that on an IPv6 BGP peering session, bothends forgot to specifically disable the IPv4 address family, so IPv4routes were exchanged but BGP was unable to resolve an IPv4 next hopaddress because this happened over IPv6, hence the strange next hopaddresses.

References:
- 32.1.0.0/16 and v6 collateral damage
  - From: Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com>

Prev by Date: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-00
Next by Date: Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt
Previous by thread: Re: 32.1.0.0/16 and v6 collateral damage
Next by thread: RA-guard ... useful or not (draft-vandevelde-v6ops-ra-guard )
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread