tunnels from the /64 only ::1 and ::2 routable
![]()
What's the technical reason for this? Couldn't the other also be routed to the tunnel?
Asking a subnet is overkill...
tunnels from the /64 only ::1 and ::2 routable
An interface (and thus a tunnel) is a /64, you can't route a /64 to two places.
What exactly do you want to do that 'a subnet is overkill' ?
tunnels from the /64 only ::1 and ::2 routable
![]()
Sorry for no explaining well.
Like If I want to have several devices at home connected by this tunnel, I only need one segment, not 2^16.
Routing everthing to ::2 and have it route to any other host is not a valid/possible behavior?
Thanks
tunnels from the /64 only ::1 and ::2 routable
Routing everthing to ::2 and have it route to any other host is not a valid/possible behavior?
No. As you need a /64 for autoconfig.
tunnels from the /64 only ::1 and ::2 routable
![]()
I still cant understand.
I think autoconfig cant use ::1 or ::2.
A "almost /64" look enough.
tunnels from the /64 only ::1 and ::2 routable
For that tunnel /64, only ::1 (PoP) and ::2 (your endpoint work).
When you have an ethernet link, eg eth0 or "Local Network Adapter" or something like that, and one starts an Router Advertisement then the RA process announces a /64 and based on that all hosts can configure their IPv6 IP automatically.
As the /64 of the tunnel is on the tunnel, it can't be used anywhere else.
Google is your friend and so is a good IPv6 book (or google for that ;)
tunnels from the /64 only ::1 and ::2 routable
![]()
Hi Nuno,
Try not to think in 'Ipv4 terms'. A subnet is exactly what you need, even if it does seem overkill in terms of numbers. The size of the IPv6 address space is such that one can easily justify seemingly-wasteful subnet sizes given the benefits they bring with few, if any, drawbacks.
Mathew
|