obsd @ 2016-01-31T17:49:04 +0100: > On 31-01-16 17:13, LÉVAI Dániel wrote: [...] > >So turns out, that if I request anything other than sla_id 0 or 1, I get > >another subnet, but with a /72 prefix. Also, using: > >ia_pd 1 re1/1 athn0/2 athn1/3 > >... resulted in the same subnet/prefix sent to me, for all interfaces. > > > >For some reason I had to increment the sla_ids by 4 to get another > >subnet. So: > >ia_pd 1 re1/1 athn0/4 athn1/8 > >... actually worked, and got three different subnets, but all came with > >a /72 prefix. And for some other reason, none of my devices (Linux, > >Android, Chromecast...) would accept a /72 address advertised, so > >although they all got a reply for their rtsol, they ignored it...
> A /72 should not work (and indeed does not work as you found out)! The > smallest subnet (with the exception of a /127 /128) is /64. Your ISP is > doing The Wrong Thing (tm). Instead your ISP should provide you with a /56 > (for 256 subnets) or, even better, with a /48, where you would have 65536 > subnets. The latter is the preferred standard although some ISP's do not > understand the sheer size of IPv6, and therefore think that they are wasting > space handing out /48's. NANOG is full of discussions about this. > > See > http://serverfault.com/questions/426183/how-does-ipv6-subnetting-work-and-how-does-it-differ-from-ipv4-subnetting > for example. Interesting. I even tried to specifically request a prefix with ia_pd 1/::/64 [...] ... but alas it didn't make any difference. Could it be that this is the error of dhcpcd's implementation of the request, and not the ISP's? Before I try the customer services, I just want to make sure this is not PEBKAC. Daniel -- LÉVAI Dániel PGP key ID = 0x83B63A8F Key fingerprint = DBEC C66B A47A DFA2 792D 650C C69B BE4C 83B6 3A8F
