| To: | Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked |
| From: | Mika Liljeberg <mika.liljeberg@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 11 Jul 2003 08:20:00 +0300 |
| Cc: | Andre Tomt <andre@xxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307110750150.24705-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307110750150.24705-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
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
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] netdev_ops, Jeff Garzik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked, Pekka Savola |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked, Pekka Savola |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked, Pekka Savola |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |