From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269886AbTGKLWW (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:22:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269905AbTGKLWW (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:22:22 -0400 Received: from cs180094.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.180.94]:20352 "EHLO hades.pp.htv.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269886AbTGKLWH (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:22:07 -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: <1057923396.893.16.camel@hades> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.0 Date: 11 Jul 2003 14:36:36 +0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ok, Here's a valid use for subnet router anycase that isn't working. Somebody asked me how to set up 6to4, so I did a little testing. Doesn't work: hades:~# ip route add ::/0 via 2002:c058:6301:: RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument Works: hades:~# ip route add ::/0 via 2002:c058:6301::1 Unfortunately the first form is what I need: hades:~# host -t AAAA 6to4.ipv6.funet.fi 6to4.ipv6.funet.fi has AAAA address 2001:708:0:1::624 6to4.ipv6.funet.fi has AAAA address 2002:c058:6301:: So apparently there really is an inappropriate subnet router anycast sanity check. Please fix this! MikaL On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 08:22, Pekka Savola wrote: > On 11 Jul 2003, Mika Liljeberg wrote: > > 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. > > If that's the case, it's OK -- it's OK, I don't remember the details. > > (It might be nice to have configurable /proc option on whether to enable > the subnet router anycast address at all, but that's also a different > story..)