From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] PROBLEM? Network unreachable despite correct route
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:46:05 +0100
Message-ID: <20070117084605.GA2316@ff.dom.local>
References: <20070111125343.GB3561@ff.dom.local> <45A636C0.6050507@birkenwald.de> <20070117081420.GA1613@ff.dom.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from poczta.o2.pl ([193.17.41.142]:58996 "EHLO poczta.o2.pl"
	rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932074AbXAQInz (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:43:55 -0500
To: Bernhard Schmidt <berni@birkenwald.de>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070117081420.GA1613@ff.dom.local>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 09:14:20AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> I've a look at this once more and have one more doubt:
> probably it's some other ip6 trick again, but why this
> default router doesn't have "normal" address in the
> same segment (2001:4ca0:.../64)? 

Sorry, I see it's OK (except my silly question!).
I should definitely read first - then write...

Jarek P.