Replace all post_url with Hugo ref blocks

This commit is contained in:
2024-08-05 01:43:55 +02:00
parent c1f1775c91
commit a2f10236a3
56 changed files with 221 additions and 241 deletions

View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ title: VPP with loopback-only OSPFv3 - Part 1
# Introduction
A few weeks ago I took a good look at the [[Babel]({% post_url 2024-03-06-vpp-babel-1 %})] protocol.
A few weeks ago I took a good look at the [[Babel]({{< ref "2024-03-06-vpp-babel-1" >}})] protocol.
I found a set of features there that I really appreciated. The first was a latency aware routing
protocol - this is useful for mesh (wireless) networks but it is also a good fit for IPng's usecase,
notably because it makes use of carrier ethernet which, if any link in the underlying MPLS network
@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ precludes the ability for IPv6 nexthops to be used. Crap on a cracker!
# OSPFv3 with IPv4 🥰
But wait, not all is lost! Remember in my [[VPP Babel]({% post_url 2024-03-06-vpp-babel-1 %})]
But wait, not all is lost! Remember in my [[VPP Babel]({{< ref "2024-03-06-vpp-babel-1" >}})]
article I mentioned that VPP has this ability to run _unnumbered_ interfaces? To recap, this is a
configuration where a primary interface, typically a loopback, will have an IPv4 and IPv6 address,
say **192.168.10.2/32** and **2001:678:d78:200::2/128** and other interfaces will borrow from that.
@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Meanwhile, in the Bird community, we were thinking about solving this problem in
Babel allows a feature to use IPv6 transit networks with IPv4 destinations, by specifying an option
called `extended next hop`. With this option, Babel will set a nexthop across address families. It
may sound freaky at first, but it's not too strange when you think about it. Take a look at my
explanation in the [[Babel]({% post_url 2024-03-06-vpp-babel-1 %})] article on how IPv6 neighbor
explanation in the [[Babel]({{< ref "2024-03-06-vpp-babel-1" >}})] article on how IPv6 neighbor
discovery can take the place of IPv4 ARP resolution to figure out the ethernet next hop.
So our initial take was: why don't we do that with OSPFv3 as well? We thought of a trick to