Subject: Re: ipv6 over PPP
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Date: 09/25/2003 17:22:33
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:58:18 +0200
| You have a point, my configuration is purely static. I have parts of
| my /48 block assigned all over my network, thus I'm tied to my ISP.
In the short term, I'm likely to do something similar, as nothing
else looks as if it will "just work" - but that's not a desirable
state to leave things in.
| What you're lacking indeed is a way to obtain this information through
That's what I would have hoped. I also would have expected this to
be defined in LCP when it was originally done (it isn't as if getting
an address is an esoteric requirement...)
But it wasn't. That's what suggests to me that the IETF mindset isn't
to do it that way at all (I have never been involved with the PPP people,
perhaps someone else here has inside knowledge?)
| and I think implementing anything beyond this will be a hack and
| will be obsoleted once anything gets standardized.
Yes, perhaps - though some of what I want to do ought be done anyway.
The one big switch "is a router" / "isn't a router" needs to go anyway
(for IPv4 & IPv6) - a system can be a router on some interfaces and not
on others, and we should be able to configure things that way.
Fixing rtadvd so that it can handle being told to use interfaces that
happen not to exist when it starts (gif interfaces, ppp interfaces, ...)
seems likely to also be a useful step forward.