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

Reply via email to