On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 11:18:57AM +1000, Olivier Mehani wrote: > On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 03:49:43PM -0400, Simon Comeau Martel wrote: > > > You received a /64 for your router interface ? Or are you in a /64 > > > subnet with other customers ? The setup sounds weird to me. To what > > > address is your ISP forwarding that /56 ? > > Yeah, it's a bit strange. But it's their IPv6 beta; very few customers are > > in it right now. I guess they won't give so much address space in the long > > run. > > Well, supposedly, end-users should receive /48s from their ISPs [0]. >
ah, great. So we just have 16 bits more then IPv4. Actually ISP can provide whatever they like to customers. Residential customers will most probably end up with /64. > > Right now, they give a /64 subnet to everyone in the beta, and, if you > > tell them you will use a router (that's the case for everyone except those > > who only have one PC connected directly to their ADSL modem), they also > give > > you a /56 subnet. > > Back to your initial problem, it is a bit of a bummer. The same happens > with Linux as well. As has been stated before, it is accepted that > router discovery is for end-hosts only. I still don't quite understand > how it is be dangerous (apart from some really twisted cases). > IIRC it is actually forced by one of the great RFC. Accepting rtadv on a system with more then one interface is a common cause for routing loops. Especially since the acceptance can not be limited to an interface. > Anyway, maybe you should ask your ISP to implement DHCPv6. DHCP used to > be a client configuration tool, but DHCPv6 is more specifically designed > for router configuration. My ISP does that over a PPP link, and it works > wonderfully. I have seen the following ways to solve this a) static gateway IPs and static routing, b) RIPng, c) gif tunnels and d) ppp. > > They are all publicly routable IPv6 addresses. > > And it will stay like that! That's one of the reasons to use IPv6: no > *(&#$(# NAT. > Actually that's the reason why organizations are not adopting IPv6. NAT is less evil then IPv6. -- :wq Claudio
