nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Thu Apr 29 06:26:57 CDT 2010
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 07:46:04 -0700
Jim Burwell <jimb at jsbc.cc> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 4/26/2010 03:36, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> I fail to see how link local is any more difficult than any
> >> other IPv6 address.
> > They're different because you have to know your local network
> > interface name as well.
> >> Windows might get interesting as windows interface naming is,
> >> uh, creative at best.
> > Exactly.
> Installation software could make this easy. It could either prompt
> the user to type in the address on a sticker then enumerate all
> interfaces on the system and attempt to contact the router on each NIC.
> Another possibility is that it could enumerate all the interfaces,
> then use the IPv6 link-local scope all routers multicast (ff02::2) to
> enumerate a list of routers found on each link, sort them and/or
> filter them by ethernet OUI, and present a list of choices for the
> user to click on to configure the router. The user could also easily
> match the enet address on a little slip of paper or sticker on the
> router to this list, or through some initial settings on the router
> which allow info to be pulled from it somehow, present a list of
> unconfigured routers, etc, etc.
> Point is, I can imagine a lot of ways this could be made user-proof
> via software/firmware combination that requires no advanced networking
It's called multicast DNS. It's easier for that to deal just with
vanilla IPv6 addresses (i.e. via application calls to getaddrinfo()),
rather than IPv6 LL addrs + interface names.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the NANOG