Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:40:05 +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: <y7vmz7vis1m.wl%jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <F7D1E22E318B7148B9EF6345A57821D901DA861B@ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com> References: <F7D1E22E318B7148B9EF6345A57821D901DA861B@ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:19:55 -0700, >>>>> "Krejsa, Dan" <dan.krejsa@windriver.com> said: > Some code in the in6_update_ifa() function in netinet6/in6.c > enforces that if an IPv6 destination address is specified for > an interface address, the interface must be point-to-point or > loopback (fine), and the corresponding prefix length must be > exactly 128 bits. > The latter seems (at least naively) to conflict with > the definition in > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-02.txt > that the interface identifier length for PPP interfaces is 64 bits, and > correspondingly prefixes accepted from a router advertisement > must also be 64 bits long; see section 5.5.3 in > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-08.txt So shouldn't you simply specify the prefix length of 64 without specifying the *destination* address of the p2p link? 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?y7vmz7vis1m.wl%jinmei>