On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 11:38 +0800, Jaze Lee wrote: > 2013/4/12 Michael H. Warfield <mhw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Big snip... > > You are, none the less, not suppose to use addresses in that block for > > ANYTHING. The fc00::/7 block is intended for what you want to do. Even > > if they happen to work, they are not guaranteed to work and may cause > > other problems (like reverse DNS lookup traffic). > Currently, i just use those ipv6 address to set up my testing > environment. One day > they will be replaced by global ipv6 address. And i do not have any > global ipv6 address right now, > i have to use some thing like 1:2:3::4. They truely work on ubuntu > 12.04, so i think they should work on > centos. That last statement is incorrect. Just because they work on Ubuntu doesn't guarantee they will work on CentOS, Scientific Linux, Fedora, or Redhat Enterprise, if they do not adhere to the proper standards. You are in an area that should be considered "undefined behavior" where it might work or it might not but, if it doesn't, it's your fault not that of the system. Although, in this case, this seems to have been more of a configuration error/confusion issue between how the systems are configured. > But now, i realize i am wrong, what about i change the > 1:2:3:4/64 to fc:2:3::4/64 ? > Is that ok? No. Strictly speaking, it should be fc00:2:3::4/64. The prefix for local unicast is fc00:: or fd00::, not fc::. It's fc00 not fc. > > > Must i change ipv6 address to some thing like 2000::/3, even i just want > > to > > > use ipv6 for private? > > > > No, you should change them to FC00:/7 for private use. That's what that > > block was allocated for. Use it. Don't just dream up stuff. > > > > You will need static routes on each of your two routers for your two > > client routes. > > > I change ipv6 address to this: > DEVICE="eth2" ---------------------------------> in centosv0 > BOOTPROTO="static" > HWADDR="60:A4:4C:23:2F:4F" > NM_CONTROLLED="yes" > ONBOOT="yes" > TYPE="Ethernet" > #UUID="97d250ea-74db-47ae-bd8c-6682f57f9add" > IPV6INIT=yes > IPV6ADDR=fc00:2:3::5/64 > IPV6_DEFAULTGW=fc00:2:3::4 > DEVICE="eth1" -------------------------------------> in centosv0 > BOOTPROTO="static" > HWADDR="60:A4:4C:23:2F:4E" > NM_CONTROLLED="yes" > ONBOOT="yes" > TYPE="Ethernet" > #UUID="f7f020e9-36a4-4f55-9ed2-81acc2dbd92f" > IPV6INIT=yes > IPV6ADDR=fc00:2:3:5::1/64 > DEVICE="eth1" -----------------------------------> in centosv1 > BOOTPROTO="static" > HWADDR="60:A4:4C:23:2F:6E" > NM_CONTROLLED="yes" > ONBOOT="yes" > TYPE="Ethernet" > #UUID="3597af05-199b-4eef-9a24-610c2872f313" > IPV6INIT=yes > IPV6ADDR=fc00:2:3:4::1/64 > DEVICE="eth2" -----------------------------------> in centosv1 > BOOTPROTO=static > HWADDR="60:A4:4C:23:2F:6F" > NM_CONTROLLED="yes" > ONBOOT="yes" > TYPE="Ethernet" > #UUID="0ddcf499-878f-4ac7-9d1a-c27f85d2bccf" > IPV6INIT=yes > IPV6ADDR=fc00:2:3::4/64 > IPV6_DEFAULTGW=fc00:2:3::5 > and restart the network: > [root@centosv0 network-scripts]# /etc/init.d/network restart > Shutting down interface eth1: [ OK ] > Shutting down interface eth2: [ OK ] > Shutting down interface eth3: [ OK ] > Shutting down loopback interface: [ OK ] > Bringing up loopback interface: [ OK ] > Bringing up interface eth1: [ OK ] > Bringing up interface eth2: [ OK ] > Bringing up interface eth3: [ OK ] > It work now, thanks a lot, lot, lot.... Great! Good to see you've made progress! > Now, why ubuntu 12.04 and centos 6.3 are so different? > Is that because ubunutu 12.04 uses 3.5 kernel, and centos uses 2.6.32 ? No. Actually I suspect it's more in the supporting scripts and infrastructure. The RedHat base distros (RH, Fedora, CentOS, SL, NST, etc) and the Debian based distros (Ubuntu, Knoppix, Backtrack, etc) have based their network support on different paradigms (and is probably the PRIMARY reason why I dislike Debian, Knoppix and Ubuntu in their network code). Historically, the RH based system is (VERY) loosely based on some of the ideas that evolved out of the AT&T SYSV system with separate configuration files, the classical init scripts are still referred to as the sysv-init stuff, and what not. NetworkManager aka NetworkMangler and systemd are throwing all that for a loop lately with some improvements and some abject debacles. OTOH, Debian was more in-line with the BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) philosophy and their network interfaces and a common init configuration file. The RH derivative scripts for IPv6 support are largely based on the work of Peter Bieringer in the ipv6init scripts (to which I had some minor input and contributions). I honestly don't know what Debian / Ubuntu is using but there are some very significant deviations in behavior and filtering in that arena. It's not at all just a kernel issue. I've done some "internal" distributions based on both paradigms (one based on Knoppix and one based on NST - Network Security ToolKit) plus contributions to several others. If you are in a well defined region (IOW - assigned addresses and network topology, etc) everything will (should) work consistently between the two paradigms (it's just that translating configurations between the two is a bugger), because the conditions are defined and have defined behaviors. When you are in a "gray area" or and undefined area where you are not adhering to the well established best common practices, standards and assignments - all bets are off - you pays your nickel and you takes your chance, and you get the blame for free. It may well work on one distribution (and I may argue that's that bug in that distribution in allowing it) and not in another. I would not be surprised at all by the behavior you have experienced there. > All in all, this problem is settled. This, I'm very glad to hear it. Go through that Hurricane Electric stuff. You'll find it useful as you learn more about IPv6. > Thanks, you are a greate man :) Thanks. I do try to help, even though I often come across as abrasive and dogmatic. Regards, Mike -- Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@xxxxxxxxxxxx /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0x674627FF | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
