On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:51 +0930 Mark Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000 > Matthew Palmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote: > > > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400 > > > Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad > > > > ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6. > > > > > > My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about > > > robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's > > > internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being > > > available and being assigned global address space. That's what the > > > global only people are saying. > > > > > > (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP > > > login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got > > > address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...) > > > > I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to > > that one -- the link-local address. > > > > Ever tried to ping a link local address? > > If you've been using IPv6 for only 18 seconds, probably not. Try it > some time, hopefully you'll work out what the issue with using LLs is. > To make it easier, here's a clue: $ ip -6 route show | grep fe80 fe80::/64 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev tun6to4 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1472 advmss 1412 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev pan0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 (eth1 is my wired/wireless LAN, tun6to4 is my IPv6 6to4 tunnel, and pan0 is my bluetooth LAN) > > > - Matt > > > > -- > > "You are capable, creative, competent, careful. Prove it." > > -- Seen in a fortune cookie > >
