Yes... That shouldn't happen. Whoever is responsible for the routers at 154.54.{57.102,30.129,5.253} should fix their configurations. Owen On Jun 15, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Robert McKay wrote:
You mean like this? ;)
1. ??? 2. ldn-ipv6-b1.ipv6.telia.net 0.0% 3 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.2 3. cogent-ic-125507-ldn-b5.c.telia.net 0.0% 2 40.6 40.4 40.2 40.6 0.3 4. ::ffff:154.54.57.102 0.0% 2 129.1 129.1 129.1 129.1 0.0 5. ::ffff:154.54.30.129 0.0% 2 120.2 120.0 119.8 120.2 0.3 6. 2001:550::100 0.0% 2 120.2 120.3 120.2 120.5 0.2 7. ::ffff:154.54.5.253 0.0% 2 120.5 120.3 120.1 120.5 0.3 8. ??? 9. cogentco.com 0.0% 2 119.9 119.9 119.9 119.9 0.0
Rob
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:35:51 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If it does, that's bad... You should never see IPv4 mapped addresses on the wire. They should only be an internal representation of an IPv4 packet within the host.
Owen
On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Nagendra Kumar (naikumar) wrote:
Hi,
Per my understanding, it is not required to have ipv6 address in loopback intf on all P routers inorder to have 6PE work. If I remember it correctly, P router will use ::FFFF::<ipv4-addr> while originating ICMPv6 error message.
-Nagendra
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Roesen [mailto:dr@cluenet.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Lo. for 6PE/6VPE
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:05AM +0200, mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree wrote:
I was just wondering , while I'm planning my network to support 6PE/6VPE why should i assign an IPv6 for Loopbacks?
Maybe it's needed for Point-Point links or external interfaces between my peers, but anyone here know why i should assign IPv6 for all my Routers inside my ISP if we will run PE/6VPE not dual stack.
Otherwise the intermediate P devices do not have an address to source ICMPv6 "hop count exceeded" error replies => traceroute doesn't work properly.
Best regards, Daniel
-- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0