|
to bthornhill
Re: IPv6 betaAll you need is a router than can handle IPv6 (most modern ones can). There is no "IPv6 gateway" or anything; it's all handled by your router. |
|
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2012-Dec-12 2:24 pm
said by squircle:All you need is a router than can handle IPv6 (most modern ones can). There is no "IPv6 gateway" or anything; it's all handled by your router. I think in the context his use of IPv6 gateway is referring to a router, since you can't just plug a bridged modem into a switch like that. |
|
|
Yes, thats what I meant. I'm hoping that both devices will still maintain their IPv4 adddresses, because if it doesn't work, I need to be able to set the modem back to a router... |
|
|
They certainly will! |
|
|
to squircle
I have a Tp-Link 2543nd flashed with OpenWRT. Works great on IPV6, but I haven't bothered doing 6hcp *lol* I just do static address and have fun with it. I also contrib to the wiki for this model on the openwrt site. » wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp- ··· wr2543ndgreat router, not bad on price. Get this model not the 743 though, you'll thank me. |
|
|
said by rodjames:I have a Tp-Link 2543nd flashed with OpenWRT. Works great on IPV6, but I haven't bothered doing 6hcp *lol* I just do static address and have fun with it. That implies there's an option other than static addressing right now... |
|
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON
1 recommendation |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2012-Dec-17 4:47 pm
said by squircle:said by rodjames:I have a Tp-Link 2543nd flashed with OpenWRT. Works great on IPV6, but I haven't bothered doing 6hcp *lol* I just do static address and have fun with it. That implies there's an option other than static addressing right now... On the WAN side.. yes. TSI is still dragging their feet on that. |
|
|
to squircle
There is. You take the range they gave you and dole out your own ip6 dhcp leases. easy. |
|
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2012-Dec-26 8:58 pm
said by rodjames:There is. You take the range they gave you and dole out your own ip6 dhcp leases. easy. Or as the vast majority will use... use RA. |
|
|
rodjames
Premium Member
2012-Dec-27 9:52 pm
yeah, easy. |
|
2 edits |
to rodjames
said by rodjames:There is. You take the range they gave you and dole out your own ip6 dhcp leases. easy. Either you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you. What I was trying to say is that there isn't ( edit: a currently implemented) way to automatically assign IPv6 ranges to CPE not that there isn't a way to automatically assign IPv6 addresses to clients behind IPv6-capable routers. I'm sure most people use SLAAC over DHCPv6 for address assignment in their LAN (as 34764170 pointed out), but that still has to be manually configured. That's the point I was trying to make. |
|
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON
1 recommendation |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2012-Dec-28 5:28 pm
said by squircle:Either you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you. What I was trying to say is that there's no way to automatically assign IPv6 ranges to CPE not that there isn't a way to automatically assign IPv6 addresses to clients behind IPv6-capable routers. Yes, TSI having DHCPv6-PD would allow for routers to be easily configured with minimal configuration by the user and it is relevant whether the user has a statically allocated /56 or one is allocated dynamically. |
|
|
said by 34764170:Yes, TSI having DHCPv6-PD would allow for routers to be easily configured with minimal configuration by the user and it is relevant whether the user has a statically allocated /56 or one is allocated dynamically. Again, I've failed at saying what I mean to say. Post edited. |
|
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2012-Dec-28 11:05 pm
said by squircle:said by 34764170:Yes, TSI having DHCPv6-PD would allow for routers to be easily configured with minimal configuration by the user and it is relevant whether the user has a statically allocated /56 or one is allocated dynamically. Again, I've failed at saying what I mean to say. Post edited. That's why I said having since it is not implemented yet and they have been dragging their feet to do things properly. |
|
|
Glad we finally sorted that I'm sure there are unique challenges in automatically assigning IPv6 ranges; I don't know that DHCP/v6 is particularly well suited to PPP* connections, but I don't know if there's a way to do block assignment through IPv6CP (reading RFC 5072 ATM). I'd assume that doing block assignment through IPv6CP would be preferred and easier to implement (piggyback off the existing IPCP configs), but I won't speak for Gabe. |
|
34764170 (banned) join:2007-09-06 Etobicoke, ON 1 edit |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2012-Dec-29 1:36 am
said by squircle:I'm sure there are unique challenges in automatically assigning IPv6 ranges; I don't know that DHCP/v6 is particularly well suited to PPP* connections, but I don't know if there's a way to do block assignment through IPv6CP (reading RFC 5072 ATM). I'd assume that doing block assignment through IPv6CP would be preferred and easier to implement (piggyback off the existing IPCP configs), but I won't speak for Gabe. IPv6CP is only involved with the link-local address and that's it; unlike IPv4 it's not even involved for the global unicast address which is the same as an IPv4 address. Address configuration is quite different with IPv4 vs IPv6 with PPP. If you take a look at Appendix A in that RFC you'll see that you have to use either RA or DHCPv6 to assign a global unicast address to the PPP/PPPoE interface and the only mechanism for propagating a prefix is DHCPv6-PD. |
|