Am Sonntag, 6. Januar 2019, 19:49:13 CET schrieb Pascal Hambourg:
> Le 06/01/2019 à 19:32, Ulf Volmer a écrit :
> > On 06.01.19 18:36, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
> >> inet6 2a02:8070:898f:e400:d263:b4ff:fe00:4dd1/64 scope global dynamic
> >> mngtmpaddr>>
> >> valid_lft 7030sec preferred_lft 3430sec
> >>
> >> inet6 2a02:8070:898f:e4f8:d263:b4ff:fe00:4dd1/64 scope global dynamic
> >> mngtmpaddr>>
> >> valid_lft 14215sec preferred_lft 14215sec
> >
> > I'm confused that you have uplink and downlink addresses configured on
> > the client.
>
> Good catch, didn't spot this. This is of course wrong.
>
> BTW, I am a bit surprised by the upstream setup. It wastes a full /64
> just for one address.
Do yo mean the 2a02:8070:898f:e400:d263:b4ff:fe00:325c/64 in
root@home:/etc# ip addr show eth0.1
4: eth0.1@eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state
UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether d0:63:b4:00:32:5c brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.0.30/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eth0.1
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 2a02:8070:898f:e400:d263:b4ff:fe00:325c/64 scope global mngtmpaddr
dynamic
valid_lft 6676sec preferred_lft 3076sec
inet6 fe80::d263:b4ff:fe00:325c/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
root@home:/etc#
?
Isn't the /64 the prefix length and longer prefixes than 64 are not supported
in
ipv6?
Thanks
Rainer
--
Rainer Dorsch
http://bokomoko.de/
