From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Liljeberg Subject: Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked Date: 11 Jul 2003 05:03:57 +0300 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <1057889037.3589.42.camel@hades> References: <20030710154302.GE1722@zip.com.au> <1057854432.3588.2.camel@hades> <20030710233931.GG1722@zip.com.au> <1057881869.3588.10.camel@hades> <1057888154.26854.324.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Andre Tomt In-Reply-To: <1057888154.26854.324.camel@localhost> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 04:49, Andre Tomt wrote: > > Setting your tunnel prefix to /64 is certainly the right thing to do. > > 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? It doesn't really make sense to use a prefix longer then /64. The last 64 bits are generally reserved for interface ID. What you can do, though, is not configure a link prefix for the tunnel at all. I.e. you can add the local tunnel end-point as a /128. This won't create an on-link route in the routing table, so you need to point the default route to the interface rather than the peer end-point. For example: ifconfig sit0 add 3ffe:dead:beef::dead:beef/128 ip route add ::/0 dev sit0 Cheers, MikaL