On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:36:23PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Marc Haber writes:
> > Unfortunately, it is pretty hard in Germany to get a dedicated VDSL
> > modem so that you can do the PPPoE yourself, so I can't comment about
> > the exchanges that go on on the wire.
>
> You can't use any VDSL m
Hi everybody,
On behalf of the NetworkManager community, I am happy to announce a new
release of NetworkManager: 1.32.0.
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/-/commit/d9c0d43879e8420dda6482b05341dcfeedf7be43
Find the tarball at our usual location:
https://download.gnome
Marc Haber writes:
> At least with 1&1 DSL in Germany (via Versatel), the Fritzbox itself
> gets an IP address from an entirely different prefix than the prefix
> that is eventually delegated for assignment to internal networks.
Yes, we do that as well. The CPE gets an IA_NA address, dynamically
On 16/06/2021 11:44, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Not at all. Assigning a global address to lo (loopback) is perfectly
fine.
Can an address from PD be automatically assigned to lo by NetworkManager?
No need to assign an address to a link unless you want to assign
a prefix to it.
Having the address o
Steve Hill via networkmanager-list
writes:
> On 16/06/2021 10:12, Beniamino Galvani wrote:
>
>> You are right, RFC 3633 forbids it. However, if I understand correctly
>> this approach is the one mentioned in [1], which refers to an expired
>> IETF draft [2] saying:
>
> RFC 3633 has been obsoleted
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:44:29PM +0200, Bjørn Mork via networkmanager-list
wrote:
> Steve Hill via networkmanager-list
> writes:
>
> > That's a pain. It basically makes it impossible for a single-NIC
> > machine to connect to an ISP that is only responding to IA_PD. (Well,
> > you can obvio
Steve Hill via networkmanager-list
writes:
> On 16/06/2021 10:36, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
>> Do you mean these RAs do not contain any valid prefix?
>
> Correct, they do not contain a prefix and set the M flag.
Hmm, which indicates that you should get an IA_NA address. If they only
provided IA_P
Steve Hill via networkmanager-list
writes:
> That said, I'm not sure I've ever seen an ISP use SLAAC over PPP, so
> is this *really* in any way standard?
IPv6 tries hard to be link agnostic. A PPP link is configured like any
other link. The only difference is the bootstrapping of the link-local
Steve Hill via networkmanager-list
writes:
> That's a pain. It basically makes it impossible for a single-NIC
> machine to connect to an ISP that is only responding to IA_PD. (Well,
> you can obviously set up a dummy NIC, which can be assigned a prefix,
> but that's a kludge).
Not at all. As
On 16/06/2021 10:12, Beniamino Galvani wrote:
You are right, RFC 3633 forbids it. However, if I understand correctly
this approach is the one mentioned in [1], which refers to an expired
IETF draft [2] saying:
RFC 3633 has been obsoleted by RFC 8415, and this MUST NOT does not
appear to be me
On 16/06/2021 10:36, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
SLAAC is used by your own system, not ISP. ISP sends RA. Your system
uses SLAAC to build address using these RA. You yourself said they are
present (you mentioned M an O flags).
SLAAC is only supposed to be performed if the RA's M flag is not set.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:28 PM Steve Hill wrote:
>
> On 16/06/2021 10:07, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
> > The default and standard method to assign IPv6 address is SLAAC.
> > DHCPv6 is optional. You need to investigate why SLAAC address was not
> > assigned.
>
> As I said, I'm not 100% sure that t
On 16/06/2021 10:07, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
The default and standard method to assign IPv6 address is SLAAC.
DHCPv6 is optional. You need to investigate why SLAAC address was not
assigned.
As I said, I'm not 100% sure that the ISP is behaving correctly,
although Bjørn indicated that what the
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:13 PM Beniamino Galvani wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:43:36AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
> > It is explicitly prohibited to assign any IA_PD prefix to the same
> > interface via which this was obtained.
> >
> >
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:43:36AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> It is explicitly prohibited to assign any IA_PD prefix to the same
> interface via which this was obtained.
>
> the requesting router MUST
>NOT assign any delegated prefixes or su
Steve Hill writes:
> On 15/06/2021 18:19, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
>> Yes, that is buggy. I wonder... I did hit a similar issue many many
>> years ago while testing IPv6 over PPPoE (which we didn't end up doing in
>> the end).
>
> I'm not entirely sure how the default route is assigned - on ethernet
>
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:03 PM Steve Hill wrote:
>
> On 16/06/2021 09:43, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
> > It is explicitly prohibited to assign any IA_PD prefix to the same
> > interface via which this was obtained.
> >
> >the requesting router MUST
On 16/06/2021 09:43, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
It is explicitly prohibited to assign any IA_PD prefix to the same
interface via which this was obtained.
the requesting router MUST
NOT assign any delegated prefixes or subnets from the delegated
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:39 AM Beniamino Galvani via
networkmanager-list wrote:
> >
> > It feels as though NetworkManager should always be making both IA_NA and
> > IA_PD requests and, if it didn't receive an IA_NA response from the ISP, it
> > should assign an address from the delegated prefix
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 03:44:47PM +0100, Steve Hill via networkmanager-list
wrote:
>
> I'm trying to get to grips with IPv6-PD over PPPoE.
>
> I'm on CentOS 8 (NetworkManager 1.30) and have main.dhcp=dhclient. My PPPoE
> connection is set to ipv6.method=auto.
>
> With no NICs set to ipv6.manu
On 15/06/2021 18:19, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Yes, that is buggy. I wonder... I did hit a similar issue many many
years ago while testing IPv6 over PPPoE (which we didn't end up doing in
the end).
I'm not entirely sure how the default route is assigned - on ethernet it
would be assigned on receipt
21 matches
Mail list logo
