Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list netdev); Wed, 09 Oct 2002 18:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.74.60]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id g9A1C8tG020118 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:12:09 -0700 Received: from edi-view1.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9A1Ak0n015393; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 03:10:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (dfawcus@localhost) by edi-view1.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/CISCO.WS.1.2) id CAA14581; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:11:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:11:54 +0100 From: Derek Fawcus To: Yuji Sekiya Cc: "David S. Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, usagi@linux-ipv6.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Fix Prefix Length of Link-local Addresses Message-ID: <20021010021154.G8102@edi-view1.cisco.com> References: <20021009.162438.82081593.davem@redhat.com> <20021009.164504.28085695.davem@redhat.com> <20021010010439.C8102@edi-view1.cisco.com> <20021010012108.E8102@edi-view1.cisco.com> <20021010014237.F8102@edi-view1.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from sekiya@sfc.wide.ad.jp on Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:56:24AM +0900 X-archive-position: 617 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: dfawcus@cisco.com Precedence: bulk X-list: netdev On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:56:24AM +0900, Yuji Sekiya wrote: > > I can underdtand there is no interoperability issue with cisco box > (with /10 link-local prefix ?) and USAGI kernel(with /64 link-local > prefix). :-) Mind it's interesting that the above currently works. I suspect that this is because the ping was originated on the cisco box, and hence ND was triggered, with the linux box probably gleaning info from the NS to create a STALE entry. That STALE entry would then probably have been probed to get a REACHABLE entry. What happens if you clear the ND entries (on both boxes), swap the link local addresses, then ping from the Linux box to the cisco box? I suspect that the ping will fail. As ND will never be triggered, and hence the host routes will not be created. Another alternative would be if one was say fe80:1910::10 and the other say fe80:2010::20, that would probably fail with the ping originated from the linux end, but I'm not sure if the linux box would respond when the ping was originated from the cisco end. Assuming my guess about the gleaning above is correct, it probably will. DF