Marc Murphy writes:
> If I swap to a 3G antenna on mPCIe modems it will connect first time
> on 3G.
>
> My main query is that why can an iPhone connect and us the 4G signal
> and the multiple modems not ? ZTE ME3630 E1C mPCIe
The main difference I can think of is that LTE registration depends
José Queiroz via networkmanager-list
writes:
> I don't see any use of such feature. As long as both connections are
> DHCP-based, you don't need to bother where you are.
Well, there are use cases where this feature might be useful. It's
enough that only one of your sites require static
Anthony Fletcher writes:
>> > My situation is with laptops in a large organisation with a central
>> > DHCP service. The DUID is static and so the laptop gets the same IPv6
>> > address even when it's moved to a different VLAN with a different
>> > prefix. When I realise the IPv6 address is not
David Howells via networkmanager-list
writes:
> Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
>> The same effect can probably be achieved by setting /128 local address
>> and adding /128 route to peer address.
>
> Any suggestion as to what address I should set? My address block is
> 2001:8b0:194::/48 if that
Marc Haber writes:
> At least with 1&1 DSL in Germany (via Versatel), the Fritzbox itself
> gets an IP address from an entirely different prefix than the prefix
> that is eventually delegated for assignment to internal networks.
Yes, we do that as well. The CPE gets an IA_NA address,
Steve Hill via networkmanager-list
writes:
> That said, I'm not sure I've ever seen an ISP use SLAAC over PPP, so
> is this *really* in any way standard?
IPv6 tries hard to be link agnostic. A PPP link is configured like any
other link. The only difference is the bootstrapping of the
Steve Hill writes:
> On 15/06/2021 18:19, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
>> Yes, that is buggy. I wonder... I did hit a similar issue many many
>> years ago while testing IPv6 over PPPoE (which we didn't end up doing in
>> the end).
>
> I'm not entirely sure how the default route is assigned - on ethernet
Steve Hill via networkmanager-list
writes:
> That's a pain. It basically makes it impossible for a single-NIC
> machine to connect to an ISP that is only responding to IA_PD. (Well,
> you can obviously set up a dummy NIC, which can be assigned a prefix,
> but that's a kludge).
Not at all.
Steve Hill via networkmanager-list
writes:
> On 16/06/2021 10:12, Beniamino Galvani wrote:
>
>> You are right, RFC 3633 forbids it. However, if I understand correctly
>> this approach is the one mentioned in [1], which refers to an expired
>> IETF draft [2] saying:
>
> RFC 3633 has been obsoleted
Steve Hill via networkmanager-list
writes:
> On 16/06/2021 10:36, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>
>> Do you mean these RAs do not contain any valid prefix?
>
> Correct, they do not contain a prefix and set the M flag.
Hmm, which indicates that you should get an IA_NA address. If they only
provided
Steve Hill via networkmanager-list
writes:
> Is my ISP behaving in a broken way, by not assigning me an address in
> response to IA_NA, or is it standard behaviour for ISPs to only
> respond to IA_PD requests?
There is no standard behaviour. Both ways are fine. There usually
isn't much need
Steve Hill writes:
> On 15/06/2021 15:56, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
>>> Is my ISP behaving in a broken way, by not assigning me an address in
>>> response to IA_NA, or is it standard behaviour for ISPs to only
>>> respond to IA_PD requests?
>> There is no standard behaviour. Both ways are fine.
12 matches
Mail list logo
