>>>>> "Lluís" == Lluís Batlle i Rossell <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 02:17:06AM +0200, David Kuehling wrote: >> >>>>> "Xiangfu" == Xiangfu Liu <[email protected]> writes: ssh >> root@fe80::8ccf:67ff:fe82:98e6%usb0 >> >> Next problem: the IPv6 link-local address changes after every boot! >> The IPv6 address is generated from the MAC-address; the MAC adress >> changes, too. Why??? > Link local addresses are generated at random, just as ipv4 autoip > addresses, only to have some id that does not collide with any in the > network. And their prefix does not indicate anything to the kernel > routing table, hence you need to specify the out interface. While you're maybe technically right, that IPv6 link-local addresses *might* be generated at random, they're non-random for all Linux systems I recently used. The suffix /is/ generated from the MAC—address, which can easily be seen when looking at ifconfig output. Also for nanonote the IPv6 link-local address is generated from the MAC-address, and it is the MAC-address that is random, probably because nobody cared to assign and store unique addresses at the factory. After all USB-based ethernet is somewhat a virtual interface. > You need some ipv6 dhcp server, or set some easy addresses in both > sides. Note that ipv6 interfaces are meant to have *more* than one ip, > so it's only about *adding* a fixed address, a *dhcp* address, > whatever. IPv6 DHCP? Noooooooo. Let's not repeat these mistakes. The right way would be for the host (and/or nanonote) to implement an IPv6 subnet (probably using a unique local address), and run radvd to broadcast presence of the network. Then the Linux kernel on the other side would automatically configure a corresponding address once it picks up the broadcast. We don't need (nor want) DHCP on IPv6. I'm against running any daemons on the nanonote to save resources. So with only the host having radvd, we'd still not know which address the nanonote would get, as long as it's using a random MAC. Using a static IPv6 address on the nanonote somewhat defeats the idea of using IPv6 in the first place. Looking here [1] I think the nanonote may be able to send router solicitations directly from the Kernel, without any daemon required. Though making the NanoNote a "router" is also somewhat ugly? cheers, David -- GnuPG public key: http://dvdkhlng.users.sourceforge.net/dk.gpg Fingerprint: B17A DC95 D293 657B 4205 D016 7DEF 5323 C174 7D40 [1] http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Linux+IPv6-HOWTO/proc-sys-net-ipv6..html
pgpGT1XMkQIJ1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Qi Hardware Discussion List Mail to list (members only): [email protected] Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
