Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-13 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 13/10/2016 21:14, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > Of note is the fact that the ULA prefix being announced is the ubiquitous > fd00::/64. 0 is a perfectly random number, just like the ubiquitous PIN code 1234. But yes, this a sloppy job by the FritzBox. Hopefully they've fixed this in more recent

IOS 10 (?) and IPv6-only WLAN

2016-10-13 Thread Bernhard Schmidt
Hi, for a couple of years now we have been running an IPv6-only eduroam on Campus for testing purposes. We use the following setup - VLAN terminated on Cisco N7k - wireless clients can't talk to each other - no IPv4 at all on the network (blocked by Wireless ACLs) - /64 SLAAC, on-link flag in RA

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-13 Thread Jeroen Massar
On 2016-10-13 09:36, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Jeroen Massar > >> RA's only install the /64 and when default announced a default. >> >> Thus 'the rest of the ULA /48' would require a default route to be >> installed to reach that... >> >> When the device does not install a

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-13 Thread Jeroen Massar
On 2016-10-13 02:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi Jeroen, > On 13/10/2016 12:16, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> On 2016-10-13 00:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> [..] >>> Kernel IPv6 routing table >>> DestinationNext Hop Flag Met Ref Use >>> If >>> fd00::/64