On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Anthony Xu <xuefei...@citrix.com> wrote: > My misunderstanding, I thought that's the link-local ip in Xenserver or KVM:-) > > If a VM is on both IPv6 and IPv4 network, what's the link-local address? > IPv4? IPv6? Both?
For dual stack case, we still require IPv6 link-local address only. --Sheng > > > Anthony > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sh...@yasker.org] >> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:13 AM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] IPv6 support draft functional spec(phase 1) >> >> 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
