On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 02:28, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > While I see where you're coming from, I don't really understand what the
> > fuss is all about.
>
> The issue definitely does not worth of time already spent for the discussion.
I agree. :)
> All the fuss is about the fact that this code lived and will live for years.
> If we allowed to add small tricks of this kind, it would end up as a full
> mess.
> Each convenience trick must have a logical background.
So what's the background for having the hack to specify a tunnel EP with
a gateway route?
> I have been asked for an opinion, this is my opinion: 6to4 is wrong,
> addresses in format of 6over4 are natural, if they are deprecated,
> another and even more natural variant is use of link-local format,
> fe80::a.b.c.d.
IPv4-mapped would be semantically correct. It definately can't be
confused with any real IPv6 address.
MikaL
|