On 18.06.2013 14:32, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:14:18PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
I think this change is useful (without having looked at the actual code),
for exactly these reasons. With the IPv6CP handshake, you'll arrive at
something the provider controls - but then in the /64 that is announced
by RA, you can choose whatever host id / interface identifier you want,
and I can see people wanting to use something easy to type and remember,
like "::1".
I must be missing something here... Exactly how do you communicate an
interface identifier via RA?
You don't. Which is the point :-) - ISP announces the RA, end user gets
to pick whatever prefix they like, inside the /64 announced.
One could argue that they should only use the interface identifier that
PPP/IPv6CP negotiated, but in practice, that would break at least privacy
addresses - so what I've seen so far is "if the ISP sends RA with A=1,
the user can use any address in that /64 they want". Which even holds
true for 3G networks that force link-local to very specific IDs.
gert
Allright fine, you guys have convinced me.
I just commited a modified version of that patch to trunk.
Please test it.
@Thomas: Please post patches against trunk and not AA in the future.
Cheers,
Steven
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
