--On Mercredi 20 octobre 2004 17:33 +0530 Sharmila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Marc,
Thanks a lot for ur reply.With the ipaddresses and mask suggested
by you,everything is working fine.I am able to ping from Host1 to Host2
successfully all the times.traceroute6 and tracepath6 also worked fine.
But,I have two questions to ask you and everybody:
1)According to my understanding site-local addresses in ipv6 are
same as private ipaddresses in ipv4.If site-local addresses are being
deprecated,which addresses should we use on private LANs??
- a (good) decision was made to deprecate and replace it by a better private address space, which is unique for any organisation that uses it. See: <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-06.txt>
- you should avoid private address space as much as possible. If you ever need it, then use the one describe in the previous draft.
- be aware that the draft contains possible IANA assignments not yet done.
2)I could not understand why netmask /80 is illegal in ipv6?
design choice:
- 48 bits are <current> mac address length. but ieee has designed 64 mac address.
- eui-64 is a mechanism to "convert" 48 bit mac address to 64 bit mac address.
- IPv6 interface id is 64 bits and contains the eui-64. See: <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3513.txt>
so in ipv6, address plans are easy. "subnet mask" is always /64. a /64 is large enough to hold any possible number of hosts on a link. a /48 is for a site. so you only have to worry to number the subnets...
Marc.
I thought ,I would use 48 bits for interface-id and remaining 80 as prefix.Why am I wrong in thinking so? When I did ifconfig with /80 ,it accepted and even displayed the address with /80 prefix.then why does the kernel (probably) set it to 64. It would be very kind of u all if you can clarify me in these things.
Thanks again for previous mail.
Expecting more help from u, Sharmila
At 06:50 AM 10/20/2004, Marc Blanchet wrote:
- your "netmask" is /80. illegal in ipv6. should be /64. - the kernel probably sets it to /64 anyway. if you then look at your config and substitute /80 by /64, then all your hosts appear to be on the same link, where they aren't.
- use /64 and do addressing for the 2 links. example:
host1 eth0 = fec0::1:e2d2:50:fcb2:7251 / 64 router eth0 = fec0::1:e2d2:50:fcb1:de7b / 64 router eth1 = fec0::2:a4b4:11:111b:9dd3 / 64 host2 eth0 = fec0::2:a4b4:50:fcb2:4574 / 64
- fec0, site-local, is currently being deprecated. You can still use it for testing purposes, but don't plan to do a whole ipv6 addressing plan with this.
Marc.
--On Mardi 19 octobre 2004 18:28 +0530 Sharmila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all, I am a new user of Ipv6 and I am using the following simple setup: Host1------Router--------Host2 Host1,Host2 & router are linux(kernel version 2.4.18-4 ) pcs with ipv6 insmoded .(Dual Stack is present on all 3 m/cs).On router,I have enabled forwarding.
The ipv6 addresses are as follows:
host1 eth0 = fec0::e2d2:50:fcb2:7251 / 80 router eth0 = fec0::e2d2:50:fcb1:de7b / 80 router eth1 = fec0::a4b4:11:111b:9dd3 / 80 host2 eth0 = fec0::a4b4:50:fcb2:4574 / 80
Added corresponding routes on host1 and host2
Now the problem is , ping6 from host1 to host2 is successful sometimes and failure sometimes.In case of failure,it gives "Destination not reachable:Address unreachable" message.
Why is it behaving abnormally?? Am I missing some configuration ? Or is the problem with my m/cs? Also, are there are any better test tools?? Please help me in this regard.
Thanks in advance, Sharmila
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
D.Sharmila Intoto Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., Uma Plaza,Nagarjuna Circle, Punjagutta, Hyderabad ,India. Mobile: 9885012730 Tel: +91-40-2335-8927 / 28Ext: 210 Fax: +91-40-2335-8933 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
