netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fw: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow 6to4 routes with SIT

To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Fw: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow 6to4 routes with SIT
From: Mika Liljeberg <mika.liljeberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 17 Jul 2003 14:54:57 +0300
Cc: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1058440586.5781.59.camel@hades>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307170956440.1348-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> <1058440586.5781.59.camel@hades>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 14:16, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 10:04, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > >     ip route add 3ffe::.... via 193.233.7.65
> > 
> > That would be simpler but, we actually require:
> > 
> > ip route add 3ffe::... via ::193.233.7.65
> > 
> > and thus require a route for ::/96.  That's confusing: ::/96 has a very 
> > specific purpose in RFCs, and we should not be overloading the 
> > functionality, it's just plain confusing.
> 
> I agree with Pekka. Alexey, you yourself admitted that this hack was put
> in, because you needed a way to represent an IPv4 address in IPv6
> format. The IPv4-mapped format (::ffff:a.b.c.d) exists exactly for this
> purpose. User space tools can accept it as a.b.c.d and convert to
> IPv4-Mapped for the IPv6 API. There is no need to invent non-standard
> practises.

Ok, I have to correct myself a bit here. Looking at the 6to4 RFC it
actually does recommend the fe80::v4addr format, already mentioned, in
case a link-local address is needed.

So we would have:

ip route add 3ffe:... via fe80::bada:bee4 dev sitX

Clean, although not as convenient for the user.

        MikaL


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>