On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 09:14:25AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > 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.
exactly, /64 is more than enough > 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. I also thought so, but couldn't find it. Maybe we confused it with host/router differences in ability of following ICMP redirects, which is the same for IPv4 and v6 - host can, router must not. Or are you able to find the reference? I'm a bit afraid of touching the code before being sure that enabling rtadv on a router is a safe thing. RFC 4861 in section 6.2.7 enables the router to accept RAs and act upon it. I don't think loop detection would be too difficult, but it's probably a lot of work to make a button for this per interface. > I have seen the following ways to solve this a) static gateway IPs and > static routing, exactly. > > > 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. Why do you think so? Most people are refering to security reasons, but it just equals to "block in" or "block in from any to $my_net"... -- Martin Pelikan
