----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bjørn Mork" <bj...@mork.no>
> To: "Pavel Simerda" <psime...@redhat.com>
> Both link local and global addresses can be manually configured
> in the sense that the interface identifier can be manually configured.

Obviously.

In context of NetworkManager features, static/manual addressing refers to 
global addresses, configured by the user, that are added to the network 
interface, while link-local adresses are configured by the kernel. See below.

> I don't know anything about OpenVZ,

Works pretty well.

“venet devices are not fully IPv6 compliant, but still works if you statically 
assign IPv6 addresses. They do not properly support MAC addresses and 
consequently link local addresses and can not play nice with neighbor discovery 
or router advertisements, router discovery, or auto-conf.”

(source: http://openvz.org/IPv6)

OpenVZ venet interfaces work as expected, you can't distinguish them from 
compliant IPv6 on Ethernet from the network. Therefore it's 100% interoperable 
but not compliant. That sounds like the standard which is there to ensure 
interoperability imposes restrictions that are not necessary for a specific 
case. Of course OpenVZ could add a pair of link-local adresses for each network 
but they would never be used in practice.

> but ppp links do of course distinguish between link-local and global 
> addresses.

I don't have an IPv6-enabled PPP connection right at hand but I think I've seen 
a working setup without one. But I'm not going to set up one right now, so 
there's no point in arguing over that. I guess the simple fact that you 
technically don't need link-local addresses for global routing doesn't help you.

> The Linux kernel does of course also distinguish between link-local and
> global addresses, regardless of interface type.

Obviously.

> Link local and global addresses are not interchangable.

Obviously.

> > There's actually no reason you would need link-local addresses for
> > static configuration.
> 
> I hear you say that.  You are wrong.

It's actually trivial to test that by either:

a) Simply configuring global addresses using iproute and using tools like ping 
to communicate over the network.

b) Actually learning about the protocols and/or watching packet flow using 
tcpdump or a similar tool.

IPv6 routing works exactly the same as IPv4 routing except that ARP packets for 
the first hop resolution are replaced with ICMP packets. When communicating 
over global IPv6 addresses, you never need to use a link-local one. If you can 
challenge that on technical ground, I'm buying you a dinner.

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bjørn Mork" <bj...@mork.no>
> To: "Pavel Simerda" <psime...@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Tore Anderson" <t...@fud.no>, networkmanager-list@gnome.org, "Dan 
> Winship" <d...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:20:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Disabling ip4 and IPV6 on F20RC1
> > But unfortunately we need to be a little bit careful about the theory
> > written down on paper and the actual needs. Linux has the long history
> > of allowing more than just blind following of what's written down.
> 
> I was writing a longer reply to this, but I think I'd better not.  This
> is just stupid.

Please don't call something stupid just because you didn't get it. I'm here to 
answer any questions if needed.

Cheers,

Pavel
_______________________________________________
networkmanager-list mailing list
networkmanager-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Reply via email to