On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 11:18:57AM +1000, Olivier Mehani wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 03:49:43PM -0400, Simon Comeau Martel wrote:
> > > You received a /64 for your router interface ?  Or are you in a /64
> > > subnet with other customers ?  The setup sounds weird to me.  To what
> > > address is your ISP forwarding that /56 ?
> > Yeah, it's a bit strange. But it's their IPv6 beta; very few customers are
> > in it right now. I guess they won't give so much address space in the long
> > run.
> 
> Well, supposedly, end-users should receive /48s from their ISPs [0].
> 

ah, great. So we just have 16 bits more then IPv4. Actually ISP can
provide whatever they like to customers. Residential customers will most
probably end up with /64.

quoted text
> > Right now, they give a /64 subnet to everyone in the beta, and, if you
> > tell them you will use a router (that's the case for everyone except those
> > who only have one PC connected directly to their ADSL modem), they also
> give
> > you a /56 subnet.
> 
> Back to your initial problem, it is a bit of a bummer. The same happens
> with Linux as well. As has been stated before, it is accepted that
> router discovery is for end-hosts only. I still don't quite understand
> how it is be dangerous (apart from some really twisted cases).
> 

IIRC it is actually forced by one of the great RFC. Accepting rtadv on a
system with more then one interface is a common cause for routing loops.
Especially since the acceptance can not be limited to an interface.

quoted text
> Anyway, maybe you should ask your ISP to implement DHCPv6. DHCP used to
> be a client configuration tool, but DHCPv6 is more specifically designed
> for router configuration. My ISP does that over a PPP link, and it works
> wonderfully.
 
I have seen the following ways to solve this a) static gateway IPs and
static routing, b) RIPng, c) gif tunnels and d) ppp.

quoted text
> > They are all publicly routable IPv6 addresses.
> 
> And it will stay like that! That's one of the reasons to use IPv6: no
> *(&#$(# NAT.
> 

Actually that's the reason why organizations are not adopting IPv6. NAT is
less evil then IPv6.

-- 
:wq Claudio