[Top] [All Lists]

Re: (usagi-users 00439) IPv6: Autoconfiguring routers

To: <itojun@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: (usagi-users 00439) IPv6: Autoconfiguring routers
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:03:48 +0300 (EEST)
Cc: <usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Bieringer <pb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <10740.988361470@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>