From: Mika Liljeberg <mika.liljeberg@welho.com>
To: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru
Cc: pekkas@netcore.fi, davem@redhat.com, jmorris@redhat.com,
netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Fw: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow 6to4 routes with SIT
Date: 17 Jul 2003 02:39:02 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1058398742.5778.26.camel@hades> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200307162328.DAA12405@dub.inr.ac.ru>
On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 02:28, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:
> > While I see where you're coming from, I don't really understand what the
> > fuss is all about.
>
> The issue definitely does not worth of time already spent for the discussion.
I agree. :)
> All the fuss is about the fact that this code lived and will live for years.
> If we allowed to add small tricks of this kind, it would end up as a full mess.
> Each convenience trick must have a logical background.
So what's the background for having the hack to specify a tunnel EP with
a gateway route?
> I have been asked for an opinion, this is my opinion: 6to4 is wrong,
> addresses in format of 6over4 are natural, if they are deprecated,
> another and even more natural variant is use of link-local format,
> fe80::a.b.c.d.
IPv4-mapped would be semantically correct. It definately can't be
confused with any real IPv6 address.
MikaL
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-07-16 23:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20030713005345.1fea1092.davem@redhat.com>
2003-07-14 23:29 ` Fw: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow 6to4 routes with SIT kuznet
2003-07-15 6:28 ` Pekka Savola
2003-07-15 14:28 ` kuznet
2003-07-15 19:26 ` Pekka Savola
2003-07-15 23:32 ` kuznet
2003-07-16 6:12 ` Pekka Savola
2003-07-17 0:20 ` kuznet
2003-07-17 7:04 ` Pekka Savola
2003-07-17 11:16 ` Mika Liljeberg
2003-07-17 11:54 ` Mika Liljeberg
2003-07-17 13:55 ` Pekka Savola
2003-07-17 14:35 ` Mika Liljeberg
2003-07-16 22:28 ` Mika Liljeberg
2003-07-16 23:28 ` kuznet
2003-07-16 23:39 ` Mika Liljeberg [this message]
2003-07-16 23:58 ` kuznet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1058398742.5778.26.camel@hades \
--to=mika.liljeberg@welho.com \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=jmorris@redhat.com \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=pekkas@netcore.fi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).