From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Liljeberg Subject: Re: Fw: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow 6to4 routes with SIT Date: 17 Jul 2003 02:39:02 +0300 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <1058398742.5778.26.camel@hades> References: <200307162328.DAA12405@dub.inr.ac.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pekkas@netcore.fi, davem@redhat.com, jmorris@redhat.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru In-Reply-To: <200307162328.DAA12405@dub.inr.ac.ru> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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