Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling broken

Pekka Savola
2003-07-10T16:05:33Z

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] ^[$B5HF#1QL@^[(B wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307101906160.18224-100000@netcore.fi> (at Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:08:20 +0300 (EEST)), Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> says:
>
> > While technically correct, I'm still not sure if this is (pragmatically)
> > the correct approach. It's OK to set a default route to go to the
> > subnet routers anycast address (so, setting a route to prefix:: should
> > not give you EINVAL).
>
> But, on the other side cannot use prefix::, and
> the setting is rather non-sense.

Not really. From the host perspective:

"I want to set default route to SOME default router"

(there may be multiple routers in the LAN, while only one at a time is
actively responding to the anycast address; if that one goes away,
another one takes its place.)

> We should educate people not to use /127; use /64 instead.
> v6ops? :-)

That's another story..

--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings