archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Carlson <>
Subject: Re: Configuring pppd to accept link-local IPv6 interface id from remote peer
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2021 22:46:29 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 2021-02-14 16:24, Benjamin Cama wrote:
> Le dimanche 14 février 2021 à 11:23 -0500, James Carlson a écrit :
>> RFC 2472 is a little weird with respect to the Interface-Identifier
>> option.  It's possible to send an all-zero identifier, but we're really
>> in uncharted waters if the peer can't give us an address or rejects the
>> option.
> Could I suggest that then IPv6CP just fails?

The RFC says that it's out of scope.  Sure; I think failure would be fine.

> Well, I actually sent last year a patch (attached again to this
> message) to Paul and Cc'ed here about sending a zero identifier to do
> exactly (to my understanding) what Nicholas is intending to do: let the
> “server”-side choose the interface identifier.
> It is a very small change that is basically activated on the “client”-
> side with:
>   ipv6 ::,
> thus sending a zero identifier for our side. It worked quite well for
> my work case (virtual serial links), where having short addresses when
> autoconfiguring helps a lot, too. I couldn't resist also citing the
> “stability to global scope addresses” argument from the RFC, which is
> indeed relevant to me, at least.

I assume that's a reference to autoconf behavior.  It's actually not
required that autoconf uses the same lower 64 bits to form those
addresses, though it it often does.  And even where it does, it's
certainly possible to use other mechanisms to do the "right thing."  In
Linux I believe you can set the client portion for stateless autoconf
with something like:

  ip token set ::123/64 dev ppp0

I'd do that in an ipv6-up script.

But, yeah, that's the only possible reason I can see to care about it,
and it seems like a pretty weak one to me.  (Usually you'll want more
than just a static address, and DHCPv6 gives you DNS and other really
handy bits as well.)

> What do you think about it?

That's a much more elegant configuration option than my suggestion.  I
like it.

(I don't like the idea that people seem to care about IPv6 link-local
addresses.  Not at all.  But I like the change, especially if it means
the question doesn't need to be answered again.)

James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-02-14 22:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-14  1:03 Configuring pppd to accept link-local IPv6 interface id from remote peer Nicholas Humfrey
2021-02-14  1:57 ` Michael Richardson
2021-02-14 13:42 ` Nicholas Humfrey
2021-02-14 16:23 ` James Carlson
2021-02-14 17:07 ` Kurt Van Dijck
2021-02-14 17:50 ` James Carlson
2021-02-14 21:24 ` Benjamin Cama
2021-02-14 22:46 ` James Carlson [this message]
2021-02-14 23:15 ` Benjamin Cama
2021-02-16  0:10 ` Nicholas Humfrey
2021-02-16 10:04 ` Benjamin Cama
2021-02-18  0:18 ` Nicholas Humfrey
2021-02-20  1:13 ` Nicholas Humfrey

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).