Re: prefix=48 static route

[Gene Czarcinski <gene czarc net>]

On 10/10/2012 02:31 AM, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> Static route should work, but the syntax is different from IPv4. I'm working on
> getting it work the same (see 'pavlix/keyfile' branch). I don't currently know
> how this works with ifcfg-rh.
>
> Pavel
Since prefix=64 is such a big deal with a lot of code (radvd requires it 
by RFC definition), I was not sure.

I am not sure how you are going to improve the specification.  I hope 
that a mask is not involved.  I thought that the "/nn" was a great 
improvement.  And as far as the IP6 address itself, once I got use to 
it, it was not bad at all.  In fact, when you do not have many/any 
limits on what the address can bem using things like :dead:beef: and 
:face: makes remembering them easier.  You just need to remember that 
some cases such as a web browser the Ip6 address needs to look like 
[fd00:beef::1:10].

Except for some additional testing, it will be back to libvirt for me.

Gene

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gene Czarcinski" <gene czarc net>
> > To: networkmanager-list gnome org
> > Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2012 6:30:28 PM
> > Subject: prefix=48 static route
> >
> > Should I be able to specify an IPv6 prefix=48 static route and have
> > it work?
> >
> > I tried but it was with a lot of other "testing" and things may have
> > just gotten a bit screwed up.
> >
> > So many things about IPv6 seem to want only prefix=64.
> >
> > Gene
> > _______________________________________________
> > networkmanager-list mailing list
> > networkmanager-list gnome org
> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list