Pekka Savola wrote:
> > 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.
Yes, again you're right, this was the problem :-) Thanks!
> > > 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.
I understand, the router sees the same prefix and that's the reason for
> For more info:
Ok, I'll deepen into that.
> > 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'.
Appending "dev eth1" to both "route -A inet6 add" and "ip -6 route add"
created an appropriate route entry but a little bit different. The route
command created Flags "UGH" and Metric 1, the ip command created Flags
"UG" and Metric 1024. I'm just wondering but will use the route command
whose result is ok for me.
Thanks all for your great help!