On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 06:49:46PM +0200, Martin Pelikan wrote: > On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 09:14:25AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > ah, great. So we just have 16 bits more then IPv4. Actually ISP can > > provide whatever they like to customers. Residential customers will most > > probably end up with /64. > > exactly, /64 is more than enough >
Only if you plan to use NAT in the near future. /64 is like a /32 in IP. Not enough in most cases. > > IIRC it is actually forced by one of the great RFC. Accepting rtadv on a > > system with more then one interface is a common cause for routing loops. > > Especially since the acceptance can not be limited to an interface. > > I also thought so, but couldn't find it. Maybe we confused it with > host/router differences in ability of following ICMP redirects, which is > the same for IPv4 and v6 - host can, router must not. Or are you able to > find the reference? > I'm a bit afraid of touching the code before being sure that enabling > rtadv on a router is a safe thing. RFC 4861 in section 6.2.7 enables the > router to accept RAs and act upon it. I don't think loop detection would > be too difficult, but it's probably a lot of work to make a button for > this per interface. > A per interface rtadv switch was actually planned. Having it global is stupid. The problem is that in the ivory tower end user systems only have one interface and only routers have more then one interface. The reality is a bit different. > > I have seen the following ways to solve this a) static gateway IPs and > > static routing, > > exactly. > > > > > They are all publicly routable IPv6 addresses. > > > And it will stay like that! That's one of the reasons to use IPv6: no > > > *(&#$(# NAT. > > Actually that's the reason why organizations are not adopting IPv6. NAT is > > less evil then IPv6. > > Why do you think so? Most people are refering to security reasons, but it > just equals to "block in" or "block in from any to $my_net"... > NAT is a much simpler concept than IPv6. IPv6 was built to make live as complex as possible for little or no gain. -- :wq Claudio
