Dividing the Indivisible

Вы находитесь здесь: version6.ru » Welcome! » Dividing the Indivisible

Эта страница — только для чтения. Вы можете посмотреть исходный текст, но не можете его изменить. Сообщите администратору, если считаете, что это неправильно.

====== Dividing the Indivisible ======

===== How to live with a /64, if that's all they gave you? =====
The "proper" approach would be to call up the provider and ask for more; there is no reason to limit IPv6 assignments to end-users to just a single /64, and in fact the current best practices document ([[http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6177.txt|RFC 6177]]) recommends "**giving home sites significantly more than a single /64**".

But what if changing the ways of your provider does not seem to be a feasible option, and you still want to have multiple physical networks with at least a semi-comfortable experience (i.e. not being forced to use DHCPv6 on every device, or bridge everything into one L2 LAN)?

This simple HOWTO explains how you can have one "primary" network with functional SLAAC, and an arbitrary (16 in my example) number of "secondary" networks, where only DHCPv6 will be available. Full two-way routing between all these networks will work without any issues.

Why bother trying to combine SLAAC and DHCPv6 networks, and not simply split the /64 into several smaller subnets and use DHCPv6 everywhere? Because I believe it is convenient to retain **at least one** network with SLAAC, I imagine this would be your main private LAN, where majority of your computers and other devices are, so that you can enjoy the convenience of SLAAC without needing to set up DHCPv6 clients on all of those.

===== Network configuration =====
Let's assume we have the following on the router.

| An IPv6 subnet from the provider: |  ''2001:db8:abcd:cdef::/64''  |
| NIC on the primary internal network, where we want SLAAC to function:  |  ''eth0''  |
| NICs on three (or more) secondary internal networks, which also \\ need IPv6, but these will have to live without SLAAC:  |  ''eth1'', ''eth2'', ''eth3''  |

What we do is...

**Carve out a /108 out of the /64, and split it into up to sixteen /112 networks.**

Let's say this network will be ''2001:db8:abcd:cdef:ffff:ffff:fff0::/108''.

But if hosts on the main LAN assume they have the /64 directly accessible on-link, how will they know they need to reach some subnets that are technically within the /64, via the router?

**The answer is: from a more-specific route in RAs!**

===== On the router =====
==== /etc/dibbler/server.conf ====
For the Dibbler DHCPv6 server (the rest of the config file is omitted).
<file>
iface "eth1" {
 class {
   pool 2001:db8:abcd:cdef:ffff:ffff:fff1::/112
 }
}

iface "eth2" {
 class {
   pool 2001:db8:abcd:cdef:ffff:ffff:fff2::/112
 }
}

iface "eth3" {
 class {
   pool 2001:db8:abcd:cdef:ffff:ffff:fff3::/112
 }
}
</file>

==== /etc/radvd.conf ====
<file>
interface eth0 {
    AdvSendAdvert on;
    prefix ::/64 { };
    route 2001:db8:abcd:cdef:ffff:ffff:fff0::/108 { };  # <- the main secret sauce in this whole recipe
};

interface eth1 {
    AdvSendAdvert on;
    AdvManagedFlag on;
    prefix ::/112 { AdvAutonomous off; };
};

interface eth2 {
    AdvSendAdvert on;
    AdvManagedFlag on;
    prefix ::/112 { AdvAutonomous off; };
};

interface eth3 {
    AdvSendAdvert on;
    AdvManagedFlag on;
    prefix ::/112 { AdvAutonomous off; };
};
</file>

==== IPs on the router interfaces ====
Simple.
  * ''eth0: 2001:db8:abcd:cdef::1/64''
  * ''eth1: 2001:db8:abcd:cdef:ffff:ffff:fff1::1/112''
  * ''eth2: 2001:db8:abcd:cdef:ffff:ffff:fff2::1/112''
  * ''eth3: 2001:db8:abcd:cdef:ffff:ffff:fff3::1/112''

===== On the clients =====
On the GNU/Linux clients connected to the "primary" LAN, the following change may be required for them to start accepting the extra more-specific route:

<file>echo 108 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/[INTERFACENAME]/accept_ra_rt_info_max_plen</file>

===== Address collisions? =====
Hosts from your primary LAN assume that the whole /64 is their own personal playground, and that they can pick any address they want. In theory this can lead to address collisions with some hosts on your secondary networks. But:

  - We have ruled out the possibility of collision with a EUI-64 address by using ''ff:ff'' in the middle of our /108 (those will always have ''ff:fe'');
  - The probability of a "Privacy Extensions" address suddenly having ''ffff:ffff:fff'' in it, is... well, calculate yourself, seems "pretty low" to me.

en/dividing-the-indivisible.1373199927.txt.gz · Последние изменения: 2013-07-07 12:25 UTC От rm

	Новости
	Сообщество
	Twitter
	IRC

Views

Навигация

Personal Tools

Поиск

Инструменты

Ссылки