dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
26
share rss forum feed


rodjames
Premium
join:2010-06-19
Gloucester, ON
reply to squircle

Re: IPv6 beta

There is. You take the range they gave you and dole out your own ip6 dhcp leases. easy.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

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
join:2010-06-19
Gloucester, ON

yeah, easy.



squircle

join:2009-06-23
Oakville, ON

2 edits
reply 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 See Profile pointed out), but that still has to be manually configured. That's the point I was trying to make.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

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.


squircle

join:2009-06-23
Oakville, ON

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

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

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.


squircle

join:2009-06-23
Oakville, ON

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

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit

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.