From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wilco Baan Hofman Subject: Re: /128 link-local subnet on 6in4 (sit) tunnels? Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:20:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1364408454.15362.1.camel@localhost> References: <1364335457.8215.21.camel@localhost> <20130327151210.GA23223@order.stressinduktion.org> <1364398673.21709.4.camel@localhost> <20130327181146.GB23223@order.stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Frederic Sowa Return-path: Received: from 37-251-2-65.FTTH.ispfabriek.nl ([37.251.2.65]:55434 "EHLO mail.baanhofman.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751705Ab3C0SVA (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:21:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130327181146.GB23223@order.stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 19:11 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 04:37:53PM +0100, Wilco Baan Hofman wrote: > > > > Weird, but sure, here goes: > > > > ip tunnel add tunv6-uplink1 mode sit remote 192.168.1.1 local > > 192.168.1.21 > > ip link set tunv6-uplink1 up mtu 1472 > > In my test I didn't specify the local address so addr.s6_addr32[3] > seems to be zero. I'll have to search the RFCs why this is the case. See section 3.7, rfc4213: The interface identifier [RFC3513] for such an interface may be based on the 32-bit IPv4 address of an underlying interface, or formed using some other means, as long as it is unique from the other tunnel endpoint with a reasonably high probability. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4213 -- Wilco