From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru Subject: Re: Fw: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow 6to4 routes with SIT Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 03:32:03 +0400 (MSD) Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <200307152332.DAA09710@dub.inr.ac.ru> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@redhat.com, jmorris@redhat.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) In-Reply-To: from "Pekka Savola" at éÀÌ 15, 2003 10:26:21 Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hello! > Such addresses are link-locals, of link local scope only. A link-local > IPv6 address is awfully difficult to remember and type for all of your > possible links. > > The only reasonable value user could supply is a global address. So what? I do not see connection to previous. You want to live with global addresses as nexthop? OK. But I remember you have spoken something quite opposite yesterday. > Please describe what you mean by "real IPv6 6to4 addresses". ... > If the node processing those as a next-hop supports 6to4 and has the sit0 > pseudointerface configured, the address will be but through the special > handling. > > If the node doesn't support 6to4 or doesn't have the sit0 pseudointerface > configured, the address will be processed as normal, as any other IPv6 > nexthop. > > Right? I do not understand why did you ask previous question. You answered to this. > Redundant information can be ignored. This is not computer science > theory, removing everything which is not directly relevant. The use of > the same representation for the next-hop (2002:F00:BA::x) as an address > (2002:BA:F00:y) is the only logical, user-friendly way. What a bullshit... The second is address of host "x". The first is supposed to be address of host F00:BA, whatever it is. Probably, you can decrypt this only because poisoned by computer science. :-) Just to complete discussion, let's stay on format fe80::A.B.C.D, for example. Unlike anothers it is 100% logically clean. :-) Alexey