Configure IPV6 using Tunnel interface

For some odd reason I'm not ablet to get the tunnel up without using an ip address on the tunnel (tunnel shows up/up, but can't ping other side ipv6 address). Can you tell based on the commands what I might be missing?

 

R1

ipv6 unicast-routing

int fast0/0

ip add x.x.22.1

ipv6 address 2001:101:1::1/48

 

int tunnel 0

ipv6 enable

ipv6 unnumber fa0/0

tunnel source loopback 0

tunnel dest x.x.23.2

tunnel mode ipv6ip

 

R2

ipv6 unicast-routing

int fast0/0

ip add x.x.23.2

ipv6 address 2001:101:1::2/48

 

int tunnel 0

ipv6 enable

ipv6 unnumber fa0/0

tunnel source loopback 0

tunnel dest x.x.23.2

tunnel mode ipv6ip

Comments

  • Do you have reachability to your tunnel destinations on both routers ? [:D]

     

  • Ok, ipv4 connectivity is fine. I'm not able to ping the ipv6 address of fa0/0. Tunnel0 is up/up.

     

  • Edit: I think if you are using a "connected subnet" over the tunnel, the IP-addresses need to be on a tunnel interface. If you want to use unnumbered interface, you'll have to run a dynamic routing protocol or point static routes through the tunnel to reach the other end (but then they shouldn't share the same subnet)

    Also another point caught my attention; is there some particular reason why you are using different interface for unnumbered and source interface? Why not to have lo0 on both?

  • <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">





    If you are using "unnumbered" on the interface itself, you will end up
    with a tunnel with two SEPARATE networks from a binary perspective.



    Just like in IPv4 ('cause most people seem to think better with it). 
    If one side pulls an address from 11.1.1.1/24 and the other from
    12.2.2.2/24 and ends up on the same interface (tunnel0), they are not
    connected in a binary sense, so will not talk to each other.



    You'd need a static route to say "hey, this network is on Tunnel0".  Or
    something to say "I'm here".



    HTH,






     



    Scott Morris, CCIEx4
    (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,

    JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.

    CCSI #21903, JNCI-M, JNCI-ER

    [email protected]



    Internetwork Expert, Inc.

    http://www.InternetworkExpert.com

    Toll Free: 877-224-8987

    Outside US: 775-826-4344



    Knowledge is power.

    Power corrupts.

    Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......






    Chosen_OnE wrote:

    Ok, ipv4 connectivity is fine. I'm not able to ping the ipv6
    address of fa0/0. Tunnel0 is up/up.

     







    Internetwork Expert - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation

    http://www.internetworkexpert.com



    Subscription information may be found at:

    http://www.ieoc.com/forums/ForumSubscriptions.aspx

  •  

     

    Jent,

     

    Thanks for the reply. I modified the source/destination to be loopback 0, with no luck. Do I need to apply the routing protocol to both Fa0/0 and tunnel0?

     

                                        Tunnel0                                                                              Tunnel0

    ====Fa0/0 (ipv4/ipv6) <Router1> S0/1 (ipv4) ======>FRAME<======= S0/1 (ipv4) <Router2> Fa0/0 (ipv6/ipv4)

  •  

    Scott,

    Thanks for the reply. [:D]

     

    So unnumbered in this situation would never work. I would need to setup an additional ipv6 address along with the routing protocol on both Fa and tunnel. I'll roll with that as the solution.

  • <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">





    When you had some "route" to the other side.






     



    Scott Morris, CCIEx4
    (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,

    JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.

    CCSI #21903, JNCI-M, JNCI-ER

    [email protected]



    Internetwork Expert, Inc.

    http://www.InternetworkExpert.com

    Toll Free: 877-224-8987

    Outside US: 775-826-4344



    Knowledge is power.

    Power corrupts.

    Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......






    Chosen_OnE wrote:

    Thanks for the reply. Big Smile

     

    what situation would using 'unnumbered' work?







    Internetwork Expert - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation

    http://www.internetworkexpert.com



    Subscription information may be found at:

    http://www.ieoc.com/forums/ForumSubscriptions.aspx

  • <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">





    If you use the same IP address to build the tunnel as you put IN the
    tunnel itself, as soon as you route to it, it will prefer the path
    through the tunnel, and your tunnel will be torn down due to recursive
    routing.



    Pick separate interfaces/addresses to be the src/dest and tunnel
    address.



    HTH,






     



    Scott Morris, CCIEx4
    (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,

    JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.

    CCSI #21903, JNCI-M, JNCI-ER

    [email protected]



    Internetwork Expert, Inc.

    http://www.InternetworkExpert.com

    Toll Free: 877-224-8987

    Outside US: 775-826-4344



    Knowledge is power.

    Power corrupts.

    Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......






    Chosen_OnE wrote:

    Thanks for the reply. I modified the source/destination to be
    loopback 0, with no luck. Do I need to apply the routing protocol to
    both Fa0/0 and tunnel0?

     

                                       
    Tunnel0                                                                             
    Tunnel0

    ====Fa0/0 (ipv4/ipv6) <Router1> S0/1 (ipv4)
    ======>FRAME<======= S0/1 (ipv4) <Router2> Fa0/0 (ipv6/ipv4)







    Internetwork Expert - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation

    http://www.internetworkexpert.com



    Subscription information may be found at:

    http://www.ieoc.com/forums/ForumSubscriptions.aspx

  •  

    bammm! That's what I was missing. [;)]

Sign In or Register to comment.