Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

["Teco Boot" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

|> This "fe80::1/128" is an invalid address prefix.
|> Address fe80::1 is OK, Address prefixes fe80::1/64 and 2001:db8::1/64
|are
|> also OK.
|
|Ah ok!  I'd normally picture what are the parameters I need to set up
|the network you illustrated on linux.  So would this be ok:?
|
|  /------\
|/        \ fe80::1       (the address)
|| Router |--------------
|\        / 2001:db8::/64 (the prefix of the subnet on which
|  \------/                 this interface is attached)
|

Now you don't depict the address in subnet 2001:db8::/64. 



|For me, whereas the 2001:db8::/64 information is enough to add in
|radvd.conf, or to add with ifconfig,  the problem is that I can't just
|say "ifconfig eth0 add fe80::1" and I must say "ifconfig eth0 add
|fe80::1/10", otherwise error.

Try ifconfig eth0 inet6 add fe80::1/64
Or  ip -6 addr add fe80::1/64 dev eth0

I think you tried to add an IPv4 address, with failing DNS lookup.



|> You are free using loopback interfaces or not.
|> I explain why I have an advantage. This is not crashing protocols, it
|is
|> eliminating unneeded terminated sessions.
|>
|> I do not accept a comment that I have no advantage. I have also
|different
|> scenarios, some have benefits from a loopback interface, some have
|not. I am
|> waiting on an answer from you, on your standpoint to be interoperable
|with
|> me or not. I hope your routing protocol doesn't crash when receiving a
|host
|> prefix. If so, I do not want to be compatible with you.
|
|Well my answer is that as of now I don't use any routing protocol, and
|only put manual prefixes in the routing tables.

OK for me.
I hope you can live with different settings, preferred by others.


Teco.


|Alex