>>>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 10:15:21 -0700,
>>>>> "Kevin Oberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I don't have any objection to changing the default interface to a
>> non-loopback one, *if the default is ever defined*. I'm arguing that
>> it would be safe *not to specify the default interface by default*.
> Ah. I guess I missed your obvious point. I'm still thinking about the
> possible effects of not specifying a default route by default. At the
> moment I don't see any other "solution" to the problem. I think it's a
> "wrong" answer, but less "wrong" than any other answer I've seen.
> The real issue, from my perspective, is that nothing that discourages
> the use of IPv6 should be done. Default to loopback is unacceptable on
> both POLA and simple functional basis. (And I was VERY astonished!) A
> one minute delay is also unacceptable. So, we're stuck with whatever
> is left.
I'd recommend to simply disable the following part in rc.network6.
# Disable installing the default interface with the
# case net.inet6.ip6.forwarding=0 and
# net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv=0, due to avoid conflict
# between the default router list and the manual
# configured default route.
case ${ipv6_gateway_enable} in
[Yy][Ee][Ss])
;;
*)
if [ `sysctl -n net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv` -eq 1 ]
then
----> ndp -I ${ipv6_default_interface}
fi
Actually, disabling this part has almost no bad effect. The only
possible bad effect is that we cannot make communication in the
following case:
- we do not have any default router that advertises Router
Advertisements.
- the destination node should be on-link, but does not share address
prefix with us.
I strongly believe such a situation is very rare, and can be ignored
in normal cases.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
