On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:51 +0930 Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000 Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400 Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being available and being assigned global address space. That's what the global only people are saying.
(how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)
I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to that one -- the link-local address.
Ever tried to ping a link local address?
If you've been using IPv6 for only 18 seconds, probably not. Try it some time, hopefully you'll work out what the issue with using LLs is.
To make it easier, here's a clue: $ ip -6 route show | grep fe80 fe80::/64 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev tun6to4 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1472 advmss 1412 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev pan0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 (eth1 is my wired/wireless LAN, tun6to4 is my IPv6 6to4 tunnel, and pan0 is my bluetooth LAN)
- Matt
-- "You are capable, creative, competent, careful. Prove it." -- Seen in a fortune cookie