Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

"Teco Boot" <> Thu, 05 March 2009 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ACDF3A6899 for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:34:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.763
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.763 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.283, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id muTgRXMLQhvb for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:34:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (cpsmtpo-eml03.KPNXCHANGE.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD3D3A6809 for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:34:53 +0100
Received: from M90Teco ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:34:52 +0100
From: "Teco Boot" <>
To: "'Alexandru Petrescu'" <>
References: <> <> <009501c99920$92154340$b63fc9c0$@nl><> <003001c99b2c$a3fcf4a0$ebf6dde0$@nl><> <000101c99c3c$3121a870$9364f950$@nl><> <><> <><> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <49AF97FA.70200!> <002201c99d76$017d4b20$0477e160$@nl> <49AFAA15.9!> <003a01c99d8e$f47ba2f0$dd72e8d0$@nl> <49AFD85E.50403!> <004a01c99d9b$542e1e10$fc8a5a30$@nl> <49AFDE93.60!> <004b01c99da1$dc4ab9b0$94e02d10$@nl> <49AFEB3C.>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:34:53 +0100
Message-ID: <004c01c99da7$ee315700$ca940500$@nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmdpHFtJNvd3EF0T6y8m0+ihhl/5QAAVtyw
Content-Language: nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2009 15:34:52.0644 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED7FBA40:01C99DA7]
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:34:29 -0000

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
|> 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
|> eliminating unneeded terminated sessions.
|> I do not accept a comment that I have no advantage. I have also
|> 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
|> me or not. I hope your routing protocol doesn't crash when receiving a
|> 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.