From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andre Tomt Subject: Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked Date: 11 Jul 2003 03:49:14 +0200 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <1057888154.26854.324.camel@localhost> References: <20030710154302.GE1722@zip.com.au> <1057854432.3588.2.camel@hades> <20030710233931.GG1722@zip.com.au> <1057881869.3588.10.camel@hades> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Mika Liljeberg , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1057881869.3588.10.camel@hades> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On fre, 2003-07-11 at 02:04, Mika Liljeberg wrote: > Well, the thing is that prefix:: is a special anycast address that > identifies a router on the link prefix::/n, where n is the prefix > length. You had configured a 127-bit link prefix, meaning that you had > only one valid unicast address (last bit =3D=3D 1) in addition to the r= outer > anycast address (last bit =3D=3D 0). Thanks for the explanation, I've been struggling to understand what Yoshfuji tried to explain to me earlier on this topic (see "IPv6 bugs introduced in 2.4.21" - ie. my bogus bugreport), now it all makes perfect sense :-) > Normally, IPv6 networks are supposed to use 64-bit on-link prefixes but > the implementation can be written in such a way that other prefix > lengths can be configured. >=20 > Setting your tunnel prefix to /64 is certainly the right thing to do.=20 If you don't have anything but one /64 for example.. I guess /126's would be ok as you could rule out the the anycast address? It will probably work with Linux - but is it wrong in any sense, other than "breaking" with EUI-64/autoconfiguration? --=20 Cheers, Andr=E9 Tomt andre@tomt.net