Re: IPv4 v IPv6
Hi.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 08:33:07PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg 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
> :
Agreed.
> 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.
It's not a DHCP server unless ISC made it.
With this in mind, something like this:
option rfc3442-classless-static-routes code 121 = array of integer 8;
option rfc3442-classless-static-routes 32, 192, 168, 0, 1, 192, 168, 0, 2;
Should announce this route:
192.168.0.1/32 via 192.168.0.2
Imperfect OSes might require adding option 249 in a similar way.
But users of such OSes should suffer anyway, so I won't bother with the
example.
Reco
Reply to: