| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Grant Edwards |
| 2 |
<grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> IPv6 link-local addresses are _way_ cool for dealing with embedded |
| 5 |
> devices that have network interfaces. You can actually set them up |
| 6 |
> and use them without having to faff about with dualing DHCP servers, |
| 7 |
> temporarily adding an IP address/route to your laptop/desktop, using |
| 8 |
> proprietary Windows-only widget-management utilities, configuring the |
| 9 |
> thing via serial console, USB port, hardware switches/jumpers, etc. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
They also don't change every time your dynamic prefix changes to the internet. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I realize that 99% of people using IPv6 today at home have static IPs |
| 15 |
with tunnel brokers, but if it ever gets rolled out mainstrem it is |
| 16 |
likely to involve dynamic prefixes, which means anytime your ISP |
| 17 |
changes your outside IP every device in your house will change its |
| 18 |
internet-routable IP. Today you don't see that since everybody uses |
| 19 |
NAT. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Link-local is really the solution to this if you don't want to use NAT |
| 22 |
in the IPv6 world (which is clearly the greater evil, and even then |
| 23 |
you're using link local anyway). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives