[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: IPv4 v IPv6



Please remove me from this email chain.

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 2:33 PM Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
Le 18/06/2019 à 18:19, Reco a écrit :
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 04:45:59PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>> Le 18/06/2019 à 16:11, Reco a écrit :
>>>
>>> The problem can be 'solved' by announcing specific IP routes to each and
>>> every host on both sites. Yes, it's gross.
>>
>> Not all hosts accept route announcements (using which protocol ?).
>
> DHCP seems to be the most straightforward way of doing this.

DHCP provides two options to advertise static routes.

The old "static-routes" option assumes classfull routing and does not
advertise a netmask or prefix length. It is derived by the client from
the address class :
class A -> /8
class B -> /16
class C -> /24
If the actual netmask does not match the classful one, the option is
unusable.

The newer "classless-static-routes" option advertises the netmask (or
prefix length, not sure), but is not supported by all DHCP clients and
servers. IIRC, the ISC DHCP client and server do not natively support
it, you have to define it as a custom option.



--
David McKisick

Reply to: