On ons, 2003-06-18 at 17:20, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Notez bien that many people use :: and ::1 and ::2 etc as a unicast
> address.
I'm getting majorly confused now, things I've taken for granted with
IPv6, and used in IOS, *BSD, Windows and Linux for ages, suddenly stops
working with Linux, and is wrong (it seems).
Is there anything wrong about using $network::1/64 ? Other than not
being EUI64..
2001:730:f:1:: is invalid as a unicast address? (note it still works on
ptp-interfaces as long as you set nexthop to the dev, not the ip address
- but I expected that.)
/127's does not match two addresses (:2a :2b in this case)?
<snip>
> > The /127 matches both 2a and 2b, why does it end up at localhost?
>
> Routing, remove the route which goes over lo.
There is no route that goes over lo, other than one for a different
prefix, wich is set to avoid loops on unmatched prefixes.
unreachable 2001:730:f::/48 dev lo metric 2048 error -101 mtu 16436 advmss
16376.
Because of routing? I don't understand. the /127 route matches both 2a
and 2b, and has no conflicting routes. It _should_ end up on the
aorta-dev as far as I can see.
2001:730:3::1:2a/127 via :: dev aorta proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1480
advmss 1420
(kernel autogenerated)
I tried removing it, and add a route without the via ::, still does not
work like before. non-routed traffic still goes to the bitbucket, but
routed traffic works as well as ever.
--
Mvh,
André Tomt
|