[c-nsp] IPV6 in general was Re: Large networks

[Grzegorz Janoszka]

Daniel Verlouw wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 12:51 +0200, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> 
>> Link-local IP's are fe80::/10, so I planned to use fe80::/16 in my 
>> network just by replacing first 16 bits of our public IP's.
>>
>> Can anyone say whether this is bad or wrong idea? :)
> 
> VRRPv6 (on Junos at least) requires you to statically configure
> link-local addresses. We use the following scheme for each subnet:
> 
> fe80::<group id>:1/64 = virtual
> fe80::2/64 = first router
> fe80::3/64 = second router
> 
> (all done using a commit script btw, so no addt'l manual labour
> involved)
> 
> We don't use HSRP (yet), but I guess you could employ this in an HSRP
> environment as well and just tell -all- your customers to point to
> fe80::X:1 as default gateway.

Yes, but I wanted to have the LL addresses unique in our whole network. 
I can take group id, but what if you move a customer from one router to 
another and the given hsrp group id is already occupied? Yes, a solution 
would be to have hsrp groups totally unique in our network, but AFAIK 
the group id can be only 0-255, so it is way too little.

I planed to use sth unique and I wanted to make link-local out of the 
main v6 of the interface.

Why did they make v6 so complicated? What is wrong with public IP's on 
vrrp/hsrp?

-- 
Grzegorz Janoszka