On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 22:32 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:43:36PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > It's documented here: http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/uci/dhcp6c > > Oh! This is tremendously cool! Thanks to everyone who made that > possible. > > Nit to pick: calling this "sla_len" is a bit weird. Especially if > you don't know whether the ISP will assign a /48, /56 or /60, this > sounds a bit awkward to ensure /64 on an interface - or am I > misreading this?
No, I think you have it right. I've just routed individual /64s to my ADSL lines before, and I see just one of them advertised in DHCPv6 PD. Not quite sure why they aren't all listed. I added a fresh /60 to my line and saw it advertised, but then I had to tweak the the sla_len to match before anything more would work. It doesn't make sense - we ought to be able to say "give the first /64 to the wired lan", "give the second to wireless", etc. Then if we get separate /64s or a larger delegation it should just dish it out accordingly. We shouldn't have to calculate and preconfigure sla_len. > > We should make sure it's enabled by default. > > That, and IPv6 for PPP (for PPP-enabled WAN interfaces). Definitely. There's almost no chance that trying IPv6CP would cause a problem; you'll just get a ProtRej from 20th century servers. It's just the same as CCP with servers that don't want it. -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
