From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266603AbTGKFFA (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:05:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269784AbTGKFFA (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:05:00 -0400 Received: from cs180094.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.180.94]:50309 "EHLO hades.pp.htv.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266603AbTGKFE7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:04:59 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked From: Mika Liljeberg To: Pekka Savola Cc: Andre Tomt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1057900800.3588.50.camel@hades> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.0 Date: 11 Jul 2003 08:20:00 +0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 07:51, Pekka Savola wrote: > Well, the system may make some sense, but IMHO, there is still zero sense > in policing this thing when you add a route. That's just plain bogus. > This is a bug which must be fixed ASAP. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in this case the interface had forwarding enabled and the sanity check in fact prevented a default route pointing to the node itself from being configured. Otherwise I fully agree. The subnet router anycast address doesn't warrant any special handling. MikaL