On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 itojun@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >If IP forwarding is enabled (e.g. router), _default route_ definitely
> >should not be autoconfigured, but I see no reason why the announced prefix
> >+ link-local suffix couldn't be combined to form one of the interface
> >addresses (on routers, all interfaces additionally probably have manually
> >assigned addresses too).
> RFC2462 talks about "host" autoconfiguration. autoconfiguration
> of a router is outside of the scope of the document. so i don't
> agree with you on "no reason why..." portion.
> btw, if all of your routers on the link is to be autoconfigured,
> how can you autoconfigure them??? :-)
Perhaps I was being imprecise or used 'autoconfiguration' the wrong way.
What I meant, is a mechanism for routers to add address like:
inet6 addr: 3ffe:2620:1:4:200:f8ff:fe08:3e0d/64 Scope:Global
in the interface configuration if they/some other router on the link is
advertising prefix 3ffe:2620:1:4::/64.
(As it is, you manually configure e.g. 3ffe:2620:1:4::1/64, but this
would be in addition to that).
Or is this viewed as a redundant address (link local could be used
instead where you know ll-adresses)?
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords