On 25.06.2013 00:15, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 18.06.2013 14:57, schrieb Steven Barth:
Allright fine, you guys have convinced me.
I just commited a modified version of that patch to trunk.
Please test it.
On AA, there's a missing line
proto_config_add_string ifaceid
in
On 18.06.2013 01:15, Thomas Bächler wrote:
You're confusing me even more - how does the patch relate to ipv6cp?
In ipv6cp, I am assigned a link-local address by the provider. I may be
wrong, but doesn't my peer expect that I use this link-local address in
its routing table in order to
Am 18.06.2013 10:03, schrieb Steven Barth:
On 18.06.2013 01:15, Thomas Bächler wrote:
You're confusing me even more - how does the patch relate to ipv6cp?
In ipv6cp, I am assigned a link-local address by the provider. I may be
wrong, but doesn't my peer expect that I use this link-local
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:35:41AM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Documentation in pppd is incomplete here, at best. While I can define an
interface identifier using the 'ipv6' option, it doesn't say anything
about hand-shaking. My impression (from the wording of the
documentation) is that
Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de writes:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:35:41AM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Documentation in pppd is incomplete here, at best. While I can define an
interface identifier using the 'ipv6' option, it doesn't say anything
about hand-shaking. My impression (from the
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,
Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de writes:
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
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
Am 18.06.2013 14:57, schrieb Steven Barth:
Allright fine, you guys have convinced me.
I just commited a modified version of that patch to trunk.
Please test it.
I see that your version is slightly more straightforward. For the
moment, I can only say that my original version works fine on AA,
When assigned a static prefix, it is desirable to also have
a static IP, however, the link-local address assigned from
the provider during ipv6cp may change on each connection.
This option solves this problem - for example, you can
append -H '::1' to the odhcp6c command line.
---
src/odhcp6c.c |
Hi Thomas,
I don't think the DHCPv6 client is the right place to do this.
You should rather configure PPP and select the interface identifier in
its configuration as this patch would completely defeat the purpose of
IPv6CP.
Regards,
Steven
___
11 matches
Mail list logo
