Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:39:25 +0900 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> To: "Krejsa, Dan" <dan.krejsa@windriver.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PPP IPv6 prefix length and stateless autoconfiguration? Message-ID: <y7v8xivk442.wl%jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <F7D1E22E318B7148B9EF6345A57821D901DA8BE8@ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com> References: <F7D1E22E318B7148B9EF6345A57821D901DA8BE8@ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(sorry for the delayed response, been busy for a while...) >>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:03:05 -0700, >>>>> "Krejsa, Dan" <dan.krejsa@windriver.com> said: > This appears to make the autoconfiguration work fine, and I > encountered no other connectivity issues in brief testing; > but a coworker of mine noticed that ifconfig no longer showed > the destination address, and I investigated and found the > 128-bit enforcement in in6_update_ifa(). This makes me somewhat > nervous; but if configuring a PPP/IPv6 interface without an > IPv6 destination address is the intended method of use, > I'd be more comfortable with this. Is that the standard > way of doing things? I don't know in which sense you mean "standard", but in any event, it's an implementation specific decision (not required by a protocol specification). I believe it's at least doesn't break any protocol standard, or cause a problem in operation (except incompatibility with an application or operation that has a different assumption as you saw). JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y7v8xivk442.wl%jinmei>