Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 11:44:06 +0900 From: Yoshinobu Inoue <shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> To: bmah@CA.Sandia.GOV Cc: jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipv6 and rc.conf questions Message-ID: <20000307114406M.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <20000307102338G.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> References: <20000306201859K.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> <200003061550.e26FoLS20060@nimitz.ca.sandia.gov> <20000307102338G.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Wmmm, should rtadvd always be invoked when 'ipv6_gateway_enable="YES" ? Oh, I need to conclude about this. > (2): Yes there is. Usually it is desirable that only upstream > router invoke rtadvd to suppress too many redirects. > In following case, only R-backbone should invoke rtadvd. > (But there will be no serious problem even if R-local > also invoke rtadvd.) > > backbone > | > R-backbone > | > --------------- my subnet > | > R-local > | > -------------- just one or two subnets > > > I have this fuzzy feeling that always invoking rtadvd on routers might > > not be a good idea, but that perhaps making it the default might be good > > (right now, rtadvd is turned off by default). > > > > Bruce. To think about the above case, always enabling rtadvd might not be good idea. And now I think the problem is that entry name, rtadvd_enable="NO" is not intuitive for users. So how about changing the name to something like, ipv6_to_be_defaultrouter="NO" and if it is set to YES, then rc.network6 invoke rtadvd (and possibly do other works)? Please give me comments if it seems reasonable or not, and also if the name is good or bad. Thanks, Yoshinobu Inoue To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000307114406M.shin>