On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Anthony Xu <xuefei...@citrix.com> wrote: > Thanks for the write-up, > > One comment, > Is there any reason not use link-local IPv4 address? > >>*User VM would have one link-local IPv6 address
IPv6 required one auto configured link local address per nic(means likely one nic would have more than one IP address, and in the different subnet), and the link local address would be used to send out DHCP request etc(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3315). It's also the basic of Neighbor discovery mechanism in IPv6(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861). I think IPv4 link-local is less relevant in this case... --Sheng > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:11 PM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1) >> >> Hi, >> >> The first draft of IPv6 FS is available at >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/IPv6+support >> now. >> >> Basically based on our previous discussion, we would like to stick to >> dnsmasq, and assume shared network for advance zone in the phase one, >> to make thing as simple as possible in phase 1. >> >> Comments/questions are welcome! >> >> --Sheng
