Gert Doering <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
Ah, right. Yes, sure, as long as DAD is OK you can configure global addresses with interface identifiers different from the one negotiated by IPV6CP. Personally I pick a nice looking /128 from the delegated prefix instead and configure it on the PPP interface (assuming that's the uplink), because the delegated prefix is more likely to be static and shorter than any RA prefix. But unfortunately RFC3633 doesn't really allow this, if we're going to be strict. Bjørn _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
