> Current design is such that all/forwarding is a general setting for
> enabling the forwarding itself, eth0/forwarding etc. just enable
> certain IPv6 features of forwarding (like responding to router
> solicitations). Please see Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt.
Thanks, this helped much :-)
> When configuring routes:
>
> node_left:
> ifconfig eth1 add fec0::202:2dff:fe02:6f3
> route -A inet6 add fec0::202:2dff:fe0d:b94a dev eth1
> route -A inet6 add fec0::202:2dff:fe05:400c gw fec0::202:2dff:fe0d:b94a
> ^^^^
>
> please try using fe80 instead; next-hops should be link-local addresses.
I knew and tried before but always with the same result:
# route -A inet6 add fec0::202:2dff:fe0 gw
fe80::202:2dff:fe0d:b94a
SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument
> The behaviour you're seeing (that is, not accepting the redirects), could
> be caused by the fact that redirects are sent from the link-local address
> but the next-hop is site-local; these are compared when receiving the
> redirect and they don't match.
Ok, but if I get the link-local address configured as next hop and the
nodes would follow the redirect they wouldn't reach their destination
(they don't have a direct link) so why does the intermediate_node
recommends the redirect?
> Actually one should not accept non - link-local nexthop's (there is a
> comment about that in route.c), and this could be one issue big issue
> caused by that.
Yes, I found this part before but not having the chance to use the fe80
address as next hop I stayed with the fec0 address.
Would be this the appropriate ip call?
# ip -6 route add fec0::202:2dff:fe05:400c via fe80::202:2dff:fe0d:b94a
RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
You see, it failed also.
Can anybody help in this?
Thanks in advance,
Juergen Nagler
|