On 2020/05/01 20:10, Gerhard Roth wrote: > On 4/30/20 11:07 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2020/04/30 20:32, Gerhard Roth wrote: > > > Hi Theo, > > > > > > is umb really working that differently for a P2P interface? I think it is > > > very similar to ppp(4) and IPv6. The standard way is to obtain the IP > > > address via PPP protocol. Just like this, umb(4) obtains the IP address > > > via > > > MBIM protocol. > > > > PPP is quite different, it only negotiates a link-local v6 address. If you > > want a routable address you must use slaac, dhcpv6, or static config. > > > > > That's what is implemented with this and former umb(4) patches. With the > > > current patch you can just do "ifconfig umb0 inet eui64" or "ifconfig umb0 > > > -inet6" anytime, whether the interface is up or not. > > > > > > But then there seem to be strange ISPs in Japan as detected by job@. They > > > don't provide any IPv6 address via MBIM protocol but rather use the > > > standard > > > IPv6 SLAAC protocol. It strange; just as if ppp(4) would need DHCP to > > > obtain > > > its IPv4 address. But still, it seems to exist and users can still work > > > with > > > umb(4) if they do "ifconfig umb0 inet6 autoconf". > > > > What happens if an ISP provides a v6 address via MBIM-config and the > > interface > > is set to "inet6 autoconf", does it still work OK? That's what most people > > will try. Since we disabled IPv6 by default, IPv6 users already know how to > > use "inet6 autoconf". > > I just can't tell. All providers here in Germany will give me an IPv6 > address via MBIM. There's no way I could test this case. Especially not in > times of Corona.
That's exactly the case I mean. What happens if you are on a network like that which gives a v6 address via MBIM and you also set "inet6 autoconf" - does that work ok? If that works then we can just tell people to use autoconf, it won't be necessary but will work for your standard case, will work for the ISP that Job found, and matches what people would normally do anyway.
