On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] $B5HF#1QL@(B wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307101906160.18224-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 10
> Jul 2003 19:08:20 +0300 (EEST)), Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> > While technically correct, I'm still not sure if this is (pragmatically)
> > the correct approach. It's OK to set a default route to go to the
> > subnet routers anycast address (so, setting a route to prefix:: should
> > not give you EINVAL).
> But, on the other side cannot use prefix::, and
> the setting is rather non-sense.
Not really. From the host perspective:
"I want to set default route to SOME default router"
(there may be multiple routers in the LAN, while only one at a time is
actively responding to the anycast address; if that one goes away,
another one takes its place.)
> We should educate people not to use /127; use /64 instead.
> v6ops? :-)
That's another story..
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings