dhcpd -6 dont start

Sten Carlsen stenc at s-carlsen.dk
Tue Apr 5 08:39:30 UTC 2016



On 05/04/2016 9:14, Simon Hobson wrote:
> "Kari, Vitali" <Vitali.Kari at komnexx.de> wrote:
>
>> But I am a little cunfused why I need a subnet6 for Link-Local interface to bring the daemon up. The fe80::/64 will fit to all Link-Local interfaces, so I get a warning about multiple interface matching even if I start the daemon with eth2.
>>
>>
>> My test config is now:
>> --------------
>> option dhcp6.name-servers 2001:4860:4860::8888, 2001:4860:4860::8844;
>> subnet6 2a03:4920:100::/44 {
>>    prefix6 2a03:4920:100:100:: 2a03:4920:10f:ff00:: /56;
>> }
>>
>> subnet6 fe80::/64 {
>> }
> What IP addresses do you have on eth2 - in particular does it match the /44 subnet you've defined ?
>
> Also, and bear in mind I'm no IPv6 expert, should the subnet and prefix declarations have different prefix lengths ?
Given the previous discussions on IPv6 vs. IPv4 addressing, I don't see
a logical reason a subnet is needed?

The NIC has an address, who it can talk to is a completely different
story, defined by the prefixes given by router(s).

Is the concept of the subnet being needed really a left-over from IPv4?,
like the address/subnet concept which does not exist in IPv6?

Also I am not an IPv6 expert by far J
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcp-users mailing list
> dhcp-users at lists.isc.org
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users

-- 
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

No improvements come from shouting:

       "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!" 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20160405/114cbf4b/attachment.html>


More information about the dhcp-users mailing list