> And this silly combination is still _better_ than 6to4 address, which
> contains redundant information, which can be mixed up with real _IPv6_
> 6to4 addresses and whihc contains IPv4 address in some place which
> used to be identification of a network prefix.
While I see where you're coming from, I don't really understand what the
fuss is all about.
IMHO, the real hack is being able to specify the tunnel endpoint using a
gateway route in the first place. Whether that gateway address is
IPv4-compatible or a 6to4 address is just a minor detail. I view my
patch as a simple convenience to the user, extending a hack that already
A more "correct" way would be to specify the gateway address in the
remote address field of the point-to-point SIT interface, and live with
the fact that you need a separate SIT interface for each 6to4 gateway
that you want to tunnel to. This already works, so the IPv4-compat route
hack is actually redundant. My understanding was that it is there simply