Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling broken

[YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In article <1057888154.26854.324.camel@localhost> (at 11 Jul 2003 03:49:14 
+0200), Andre Tomt <andre@xxxxxxxx> says:

> Thanks for the explanation, I've been struggling to understand what
> Yoshfuji tried to explain to me earlier on this topic (see "IPv6 bugs
> introduced in 2.4.21" - ie. my bogus bugreport), now it all makes
> perfect sense :-)

Sorry for my poor explanation...


> If you don't have anything but one /64 for example.. I guess /126's
> would be ok as you could rule out the the anycast address? It will
> probably work with Linux - but is it wrong in any sense, other than
> "breaking" with EUI-64/autoconfiguration?

I don't think so, but I won't recoomend doing this.
(I even don't assign global addresses to p-t-p interface at all.)

--yoshfuji