On ons, 2003-06-18 at 15:42, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
> In article <1055793048.24660.160.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at 16 Jun
> 2003 21:50:48 +0200), Andre Tomt <andre@xxxxxxxxxxx> says:
>
> > I mailed you guys a little while ago on the "unable to use
> > SOMENETWORK::0000 as a nexthop gateway" bug in 2.4.21-pre/rc a while
> > ago. It is still present in 2.4.21, rendering the "first" /128 of a
> > arbitrary prefixlen unusable - :0000. This is especially bad with /127
> > tunnels, rendering :0000 and :0001 unusable). But! There is one more
> :
>
> This is NOT the bug but by the spec.
> prefix:: is an anycast address, not a unicast;
> you cannot use it like an unicast address.
Ok, that probably is correct. It works in 2.4.20, that does not mean
it's correct behavior though ;-)
> Well...
>
> Do you really need to assign global address on the point-to-point device?
Yes.
> If yes, you should not use /127 prefix; please use /64 instead.
No one in their right mind assigns /64's for a linknetwork with two
peers. It's a pointopoint-link. All people I know use either /128
pointopoint or pointomultipoint semantics (BSD, KAME), or /127's as
Linux refuses to use the traditional pointopoint or peer parameter in
ifconfig and iproute for ipv6.
The /127 matches both 2a and 2b, why does it end up at localhost?
|