Hi, On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:14:18PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > I think this change is useful (without having looked at the actual code), > > for exactly these reasons. With the IPv6CP handshake, you'll arrive at > > something the provider controls - but then in the /64 that is announced > > by RA, you can choose whatever host id / interface identifier you want, > > and I can see people wanting to use something easy to type and remember, > > like "::1". > > I must be missing something here... Exactly how do you communicate an > interface identifier via RA?
You don't. Which is the point :-) - ISP announces the RA, end user gets
to pick whatever prefix they like, inside the /64 announced.
One could argue that they should only use the interface identifier that
PPP/IPv6CP negotiated, but in practice, that would break at least privacy
addresses - so what I've seen so far is "if the ISP sends RA with A=1,
the user can use any address in that /64 they want". Which even holds
true for 3G networks that force link-local to very specific IDs.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpu1T_DL5sDR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
