On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, [iso-8859-15] Jürgen Nagler wrote:
> > 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
Don't forget 'dev' argument; should work then.
> > 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?
Ah, the problem is different than I thought.
What you're trying to accomplish, is so-called "multi-link subnet", that
is, assigning a single prefix on many links. The router then acts as a
proxy between them.
For more info:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thaler-ipngwg-multilink-subnets-01.txt
I think the router, if it's set up properly (that is, have host routes to
the addresses on the other interface), shouldn't be sending redirects.
> 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
Remember 'dev'.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
|