From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anand Kumria Subject: Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:49:17 +1000 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: References: <20030711.005542.04973601.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: To: netdev@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:08:20 +1000, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] 吉藤英明 > wrote: >> In article <20030710154302.GE1722@zip.com.au> (at Fri, 11 Jul 2003 >> 01:43:03 +1000), CaT says: >> >> > With 2.4.21-pre2 I can get a nice tunnel going over my ppp connection >> > and as such get ipv6 connectivity. I think went to 2.4.21 and then to >> > 2.4.22-pre4 and bringing up the tunnel fails as follows: >> : >> > ip addr add 3ffe:8001:000c:ffff::37/127 dev sit1 >> > ip route add ::/0 via 3ffe:8001:000c:ffff::36 >> > RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument >> >> This is not bug, but rather misconfiguration; you cannot use prefix::, >> which is mandatory subnet routers anycast address, as unicast address. I'm the other end of this link, so I'm wondering how this is a misconfiguration. RFC3513 2.6.1 suggests to me that 3ffe:8001:c:ffff::36/127 is the router address (my end) and the other side should be 3ffe:8001:c:ffff::37/127. > While technically correct, I'm still not sure if this is (pragmatically) > the correct approach. It's OK to set a default route to go to the > subnet routers anycast address (so, setting a route to prefix:: should > not give you EINVAL). > Both Yoshifuji and yourself suggested that /127 isn't the way to go and that this is something v6ops ought to take up. I had a quick look at the v6ops IETF group and nothing struck me. What would you recommend I look at to see why /127 is a bad idea or /64 is a better idea than /127? Thanks, Anand