Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost> wrote:
> Actually, IPv6 over PPP works just fine without either one, once I
IPv6 over PPP works just great if you put in the default route, of course.
> kludge around the lack of a defaultroute6 option. I infer that this is
> another IPv6 religious issue, akin to MAC-based autoconfig, and I
> should just shut up and toe the party line.
You can can say that if you want to.
Or it could be that PPPv4 was simply a total botch.
> I likely will not do anything now, because I have it working with route
> commands in ipv6-up. But, if it bothers me in the future, expect me to
> fix the damn software rather than running even more (and more complex)
> software to make up for some fool's religious insistence that everyone
> else should see network configuration the same way The IPv6 Cabal does.
Or you could continue to support the IPv4 Cabal of backbone operators who
want you to have only NAT'ed IPv4. If could be, that the IPv6 way is the
way *out* of the "some fool's" belief that you are merely a consumer.
> Having to run a DHCP server - or something rtadvdish - just to get a
> default route amounts to saying that static configurations are broken.
You could read what was written: you can run a DHCPv6 client, which could
almost be written in a shell script with nc. Or you can continue to run
triple NAT'ed IPv4.
>> Having pppd do it would be wrong: you might as well do it in an ip-up
>> script.
> Having pppd do it is no more wrong than having pppd do it for v4 is.
I'm glad you agree with the IPv6 architects.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr%sandelman.ca@localhost http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature