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 18.104.22.168
> > That would be simpler but, we actually require:
> > ip route add 3ffe::... via ::22.214.171.124
> > 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
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.