1 |
Hello! |
2 |
|
3 |
Is there anyone who has experience with unique local addresses (fc00::/7)? |
4 |
|
5 |
I have experience with radvd and isc dhcp (in ipv6 mode too with the -6 |
6 |
flag), I could already configure stateful configuration with global |
7 |
unicast (2000::/3) addresses with working default gateway. |
8 |
|
9 |
What I am trying to do now is to create a local IPv6 network space with |
10 |
a dhcpv6 server (amd64 gentoo), which is only reachable via VPN. The |
11 |
network does not have any router, it's isolated. IPv4 is not an option, |
12 |
and DHCPv6 is mandatory. The clients are mostly Windows Vista+ systems. |
13 |
What I am seeking is the proper way to do this. I could make it work, |
14 |
but I consider this a hack. |
15 |
|
16 |
I generated a random IPv6 address range, but I will use the |
17 |
fd00:2001:db8::/64 prefix in the description. |
18 |
|
19 |
Problem #1: |
20 |
|
21 |
DHCPv6 works fine, it pushes an IPv6 address to the client, but the |
22 |
client does not get the prefix information with it. Eg.: client gets |
23 |
fd00:2001:db8::ffff:fffe/128 as address, but missing the local route |
24 |
information for fd00:2001:db8::/64 through the interface. |
25 |
|
26 |
Problem #2: |
27 |
|
28 |
If I use radvd advertising the fd00:2001:db8::/64 prefix, the client |
29 |
configures that up, but it also configures a bogus default route too, |
30 |
which is definitely unwanted. |
31 |
|
32 |
Hack #1: |
33 |
|
34 |
Using dhcp and radvd together actually works (even though it's very |
35 |
ugly). It does not ruin an existing IPv6 connection, and does not cause |
36 |
problems when originally there is none. I just fear it *might*. |
37 |
|
38 |
Hack #2: |
39 |
|
40 |
It is possible to create static (even on-link) routes with netsh, but |
41 |
other than being ugly as well, it's not platform independent solution. |
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
What I would require is (if it's somehow possible), to make the |
46 |
platform-independent client do prefix discovery, find the prefix |
47 |
on-link, but do not configure routing information for that link. And to |
48 |
do it the proper way. |
49 |
|
50 |
Any ideas? |