In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

What implied contract, please?

Like I said, the implied Internet Services contract for IPv4, to provide connectivity to all public IPv4 addresses.

You ain't going to get a link from me, because it is an implied contract term and is not explicit. Think of it like this:- suppose the ISP gave you an IP address and a working link with TCP/IP, but it didn't route anywhere. Would you think that they were fulfilling the contract?

In reply to a post by DFScale:

Like I said, the implied Internet Services contract for IPv4, to provide connectivity to all public IPv4 addresses.

Is the implied contract IPv4-only, or does it apply to IPv6 addresses too?

In reply to a post by behuk:

Is the implied contract IPv4-only, or does it apply to IPv6 addresses too?

I will leave that as an exercise for you. Do google and read up the law on implied contracts.

In reply to a post by DFScale:

In reply to a post by behuk:

Is the implied contract IPv4-only, or does it apply to IPv6 addresses too?

I will leave that as an exercise for you. Do google and read up the law on implied contracts.

Fair, genuine question from behuk, shame a poor "look it up yourself" was the response, could have understood if some others including me had asked it.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

On each router, try adding a static route to the other party's IP address via the gateway

e.g. say:
you are 84.18.228.42 with gateway 84.18.228.1
they are 84.18.228.123 with gateway 84.18.228.1

On your router, add a route to 84.18.228.123/32 via 84.18.228.1
On their router, add a route to 84.18.228.42/32 via 84.18.228.1

That won't work. What may work is a static ARP entry for the address pointing to the gateway. If that's done on both sides the gateway BNG will hopefully just forward the data along and the static ARP will overrule whatever the source address is if the BNG doesn't rewrite it.

Obviously whether the routers they are using allow them to add static ARP entries is a different matter entirely!

In reply to a post by PCJM40:

Fair, genuine question from behuk, shame a poor "look it up yourself" was the response, could have understood if some others including me had asked it.

Implied terms is a fairly straightforward concept to understand, but difficult to actually pin down in a formal definition. As the question was actually asked, I think it is better for people to read up on the topic themselves and come to their own view. FWIW, I think that the implied Internet Services contract for IPv6, would be to provide connectivity to all public IPv6 addresses where the contract includes IPv6 and not where it doesn't. But if I had said that, I could have been criticised for being patronising or something. And, genuine or not, the question did look like a trap for exactly that.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

That won't work.

It *should* work. A standards-compliant router does longest-prefix match: if it has a static route to 84.18.228.42/32 and a connected route to 84.18.228.0/22, the former will be followed when the destination address of a datagram is .42

It will then see the next-hop of .1, which it can resolve via the connected route.

In reply to a post by XGS_Is_On:

What may work is a static ARP entry for the address pointing to the gateway.

That should work as well. Although really the BNG should be doing proxy-ARP in this scenario, to enable the client-to-client communication on the same subnet.

In reply to a post by DFScale:

the question did look like a trap

Not good when you start believing every question could be a trap.

I suspected one question. Just one. I didn't believe, I suspected. Now make of that what you probably will.

In reply to a post by DFScale:

I suspected one question. Just one. I didn't believe, I suspected. Now make of that what you probably will.

Surely to god part of anyone's calculation is the type of person asking the question, I have to say behuk has got to be at the other end of the scale when suspecting a loaded question. This shows very poor judgement, hopefully it will be a lesson to you.