This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Mon May 9 12:53:52 CEST 2005
On 9-mei-2005, at 12:40, Gert Doering wrote: > As for the /128s: I think that providing a /64 for a dialup router, > negotiating unique host-IDs with incoming PPP clients and then sending > RAs for the "shared" /64 down the PPP links will work fine for /128 > (auto-)assignment. I'm not sure, though, whether that's fully backed > by all relevant specs. I don't understand what you mean here... Suppose: host1 host2 +---------------+ +--------------------+ | / |ISP dial-up box+-ppp-+customer dial-up box+---customer subnet +---------------+ +--------------------+ | \ host4 host3 So the ISP and customer boxes negotiate interface identifiers. So far so good. But if the ISP box now starts sending out RAs, how do hosts 1 - 4 know this? For this to work the customer box must be a bridge and not a router, but this negates the whole idea behind the two boxes on opposite ends of the PPP link negotiating interface identifiers... What you need is a subnet for the PPP link and _another_ subnet for the customer's other stuff. This can be done with DHCPv6 prefix delegation, I think, but not with regular RAs.
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]