[125884] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Sun Apr 25 22:38:38 2010
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:37:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
In-Reply-To: <4BD4DFB9.5070105@dougbarton.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 04/25/10 16:42, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> That's what Link Local is for.
>>
>> fe80::<EUI-64>%<interface>
>>
>> For example, if the CPE is connected to the customer's network on eth0
>> and the CPE mac address is 00:45:4b:b9:02:be, you could go to:
>>
>> http://[fe80::0245:4bff:feb9:02be]%eth0
>
> ... and regardless of the specific method, the vendors already document
> the procedure for connecting to the web interface for IPv4, there is no
> reason to believe that they could not or would not do the same for IPv6
> if necessary.
Does anyone actually believe that the above is user-friendly and will work
in real life? Using link-local for this kind of end-user administration of
their equipment is doomed to fail. There needs to be a procedure for
devices which are going to get DHCP-PD from the provider, that they have a
certain prefix they use until they actually get the real PD prefix, so end
user dns etc works so it's easy to do administration of the device.
We can't expect end-users to do the above procedure.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
