FG-800C and FG-600D IPv6 /127 point-to-point addressing issue

[giogia]

Hi ! We are beginning to migrate to IPv6 in a /48 switch with about 30 primary subnets and 100 secondary subnets. We use 2 FG-800C (Firmware 5.4.4) and 2 FG-600D (latest Firmware) as FW and OSPF for internal routing subject to NAC rules.

Drawing our address assignation plan, the question we have is whether those boxes are capable of /127 addressing for point-to-point communication with internal and border routers.

Yes/No will do for an answer, but I'd be extra grateful is someone could also point me to the relevant Fortinet documentation. (I did search the knowledge base online to no avail.)

Cheers, -giogia

[romanr · Accepted solution]

Hey,

from what I can see:

Fortigates do not support the RFC6061 for /127 bit adressing right now

They do for the analog /31 standard in IPv4 - RFC3021 though....

Br,Roman

[romanr · Accepted solution]

Hey,

from what I can see:

Fortigates do not support the RFC6061 for /127 bit adressing right now

They do for the analog /31 standard in IPv4 - RFC3021 though....

Br,Roman

[romanr · Accepted solution]

http://docs.fortinet.com/...SupportedRFCs_FULL.pdf

[emnoc]

Hmm not 100% of that ......

Fortigates do not support the RFC6061 for /127 bit adressing right now

SOXFGT-1 (root) # get router info6 routing-table  connected IPv6 Routing Table Codes: K - kernel route, C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, O - OSPF,        IA - OSPF inter area        N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2        E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2        I - IS-IS, B - BGP        * - candidate default Timers: Uptime C       ::1/128 via ::, root, 03w3d19h C       2001:db8::/127 via ::, loop6, 01:10:38

Now should you use  a /127 is a the real question? Per RFCs everything suppose to be /64