2010/9/9, Claudio Jeker :
>> And a new flag to struct in6_ifextra?
>
> Nope, it will be part of ifnet->if_xflags.
Actually, it's already in in6_ifextra->nd_ifinfo->flags, named
ND6_IFF_ACCEPT_RTADV and controlled by the "ndp -i" command. However,
ifconfig autoconfprivacy uses if_xflags and separat
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Martin Pelikan wrote:
> 2010/9/7, Claudio Jeker :
> > As soon as you spilt a /64 into something smaler you left IPv6 land end
> > entered something that looks like IPv6 but isn't. Sure it is possible but
> > by doing it you make every IPv6 disciple scream i
* Martin Pelikan (martin.peli...@gmail.com) wrote:
> 2010/9/7, Claudio Jeker :
> > As soon as you spilt a /64 into something smaler you left IPv6 land end
> > entered something that looks like IPv6 but isn't. Sure it is possible but
> > by doing it you make every IPv6 disciple scream in agony (whic
2010/9/7, Claudio Jeker :
> As soon as you spilt a /64 into something smaler you left IPv6 land end
> entered something that looks like IPv6 but isn't. Sure it is possible but
> by doing it you make every IPv6 disciple scream in agony (which is
> probably a good thing anyway).
I don't understand t
> I think the number 1 question I have about IPv6 is:
> What is wrong with arp?
Nothing is wrong with arp.
As a result of avoiding arp, IPv6 is a duck sitting in a tailing
pond. It isn't dead yet.
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:23:19AM +0200, Martin Pelikan wrote:
> 2010/9/6, Claudio Jeker :
> > Only if you plan to use NAT in the near future. /64 is like a /32 in IP.
> > Not enough in most cases.
>
> Why? You can always use DHCPv6 and split the rank further... I haven't
> much studied the proto
2010/9/6, Claudio Jeker :
> Only if you plan to use NAT in the near future. /64 is like a /32 in IP.
> Not enough in most cases.
Why? You can always use DHCPv6 and split the rank further... I haven't
much studied the protocol itself, but in practice the only system that
has trouble with it is Linu
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 23:26:09 +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>> exactly, /64 is more than enough
>>
>
>Only if you plan to use NAT in the near future. /64 is like a /32 in IP.
>Not enough in most cases.
Gee, I thought that 18446744073709551616 addresses was a bit more than
1
;-)
*** NOTE *** Please
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 06:49:46PM +0200, Martin Pelikan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 09:14:25AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > ah, great. So we just have 16 bits more then IPv4. Actually ISP can
> > provide whatever they like to customers. Residential customers will most
> > probably end up w
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 09:14:25AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> ah, great. So we just have 16 bits more then IPv4. Actually ISP can
> provide whatever they like to customers. Residential customers will most
> probably end up with /64.
exactly, /64 is more than enough
> IIRC it is actually force
Hi,
On Mon, 06.09.2010 at 11:18:57 +1000, Olivier Mehani wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 03:49:43PM -0400, Simon Comeau Martel wrote:
> > > You received a /64 for your router interface ? Or are you in a /64
> > > subnet with other customers ? The setup sounds weird to me. To what
> > > addres
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 11:18:57AM +1000, Olivier Mehani wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 03:49:43PM -0400, Simon Comeau Martel wrote:
> > > You received a /64 for your router interface ? Or are you in a /64
> > > subnet with other customers ? The setup sounds weird to me. To what
> > > address
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 03:49:43PM -0400, Simon Comeau Martel wrote:
> > You received a /64 for your router interface ? Or are you in a /64
> > subnet with other customers ? The setup sounds weird to me. To what
> > address is your ISP forwarding that /56 ?
> Yeah, it's a bit strange. But it's t
I'm pretty sure IPv6 forwarding and accepting routing advertisements
will be a necessity going forward. At the current time I don't know of
any other way to dynamically find the default route in IPv6, necessary
for end user gateways on consumer ISPs. Even using DHCPv6 your default
gateway is found
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> You received a /64 for your router interface ? Or are you in a /64
> subnet with other customers ? The setup sounds weird to me. To what
> address is your ISP forwarding that /56 ?
>
Yeah, it's a bit strange. But it's their IPv6 beta; ver
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 02:14:20PM -0400, Simon Comeau Martel wrote:
| 2010/9/5 Martin Pelikan
|
| >
| > I can't think of a reason why two ISP's can't configure their routers'
| > IPs manually. IMO autoconf is for end-users only.
|
|
|
| I am an end-user; not an ISP. I need autoconf to find wh
2010/9/5 Martin Pelikan
>
> I can't think of a reason why two ISP's can't configure their routers'
> IPs manually. IMO autoconf is for end-users only.
I am an end-user; not an ISP. I need autoconf to find what's my IPv6 default
gateway. And I need to have a router on my LAN telling my devices
2010/9/5, Simon Comeau Martel :
> I am trying to figure out why OpenBSD won't let me activate
> "net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv" and "net.inet6.ip6.forwarding" at the same
> time.
/usr/src/sys/netinet6/in6_proto.c:int ip6_accept_rtadv = 0; /*
enabling forwarding and rtadv concurrently is dangerous
Hi,
I am trying to figure out why OpenBSD won't let me activate
"net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv" and "net.inet6.ip6.forwarding" at the same
time.
My ISP started an IPv6 beta, and I am trying to configure my OpenBSD router
for it. I want to get the IPv6 address of my gateway (the address of my
ISP's r
19 matches
Mail list logo
