From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pekka Savola Subject: Re: Fw: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow 6to4 routes with SIT Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:12:04 +0300 (EEST) Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: References: <200307152332.DAA09710@dub.inr.ac.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: davem@redhat.com, , Return-path: To: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru In-Reply-To: <200307152332.DAA09710@dub.inr.ac.ru> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote: > > 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? Yes, I dare to say that they're a requirement. (But to be clear, when I talk about "global nexthop", I'm only interested in nexthops which are on-link. That is, if you have prefix 3FFF:FFFF:A:B::/64, setting 3FFE:FFFF:A:B::1 would be ok, but 3FFE:FFFF:F00:BA::1 would not *have* to work.) > OK. But I remember you have spoken something quite > opposite yesterday. I don't recall that. I think I was only suggesting that ONE possible way of implementing it (which I wouldn't think is the best one) is make that the user space tools' problem: i.e. make them resolve a globally addressed nexthop to a link-local nexthop. > > 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. :-) You read too much to in what I wrote (or maybe I wrote too much :-) -- what I mean is that 6to4 addresses have a very specific format. It's completely illogical and unfriendly to the users to require use different formats when they use 6to4 addresses as nexthops and "normal" addresses. > Just to complete discussion, let's stay on format fe80::A.B.C.D, for example. > Unlike anothers it is 100% logically clean. :-) I can't disagree with you there; it's simple, but it's NOT what specifications use and the *users* want and need to use. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings