| To: | pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx (Pekka Savola) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: patch: ipv6 nexthop can be 6to4 address |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:38:05 +0400 (MSK DST) |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106232252400.13709-200000@xxxxxxxxxx> from "Pekka Savola" at Jun 23, 1 11:00:21 pm |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > The current implementation basically assumes the only v6-over-v4 tunneling > method is automatic tunneling with compatible addresses. This is not true. Next hop address on tunnel routes is not more than a trick to tunnel to given IPv4 address, it is dummy and its IPv6 format is totally meaningless. No matter, what transition scheme is used today or tomorrow, compat addresses are enough and we do not need to change this place each time when someone invents a new format with inlined IPv4 address. Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: net driver directory moves for 2.5, Jes Sorensen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [OT] ethtool MII helpers (actually two OT's), Perches, Joe |
| Previous by Thread: | patch: ipv6 nexthop can be 6to4 address, Pekka Savola |
| Next by Thread: | [OT] ethtool MII helpers (actually two OT's), Hen, Shmulik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |