Ok,
Here's a valid use for subnet router anycase that isn't working.
Somebody asked me how to set up 6to4, so I did a little testing.
Doesn't work:
hades:~# ip route add ::/0 via 2002:c058:6301::
RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
Works:
hades:~# ip route add ::/0 via 2002:c058:6301::1
Unfortunately the first form is what I need:
hades:~# host -t AAAA 6to4.ipv6.funet.fi
6to4.ipv6.funet.fi has AAAA address 2001:708:0:1::624
6to4.ipv6.funet.fi has AAAA address 2002:c058:6301::
So apparently there really is an inappropriate subnet router anycast
sanity check. Please fix this!
MikaL
On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 08:22, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2003, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 07:51, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > > Well, the system may make some sense, but IMHO, there is still zero sense
> > > in policing this thing when you add a route. That's just plain bogus.
> > > This is a bug which must be fixed ASAP.
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in this case the interface had
> > forwarding enabled and the sanity check in fact prevented a default
> > route pointing to the node itself from being configured.
> >
> > Otherwise I fully agree. The subnet router anycast address doesn't
> > warrant any special handling.
>
> If that's the case, it's OK -- it's OK, I don't remember the details.
>
> (It might be nice to have configurable /proc option on whether to enable
> the subnet router anycast address at all, but that's also a different
> story..)
|