On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:08:20 +1000, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] 吉藤英明
> wrote:
>> In article <20030710154302.GE1722@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Fri, 11 Jul 2003
>> 01:43:03 +1000), CaT <cat@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
>>
>> > With 2.4.21-pre2 I can get a nice tunnel going over my ppp connection
>> > and as such get ipv6 connectivity. I think went to 2.4.21 and then to
>> > 2.4.22-pre4 and bringing up the tunnel fails as follows:
>> :
>> > ip addr add 3ffe:8001:000c:ffff::37/127 dev sit1
>> > ip route add ::/0 via 3ffe:8001:000c:ffff::36
>> > RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
>>
>> This is not bug, but rather misconfiguration; you cannot use prefix::,
>> which is mandatory subnet routers anycast address, as unicast address.
I'm the other end of this link, so I'm wondering how this is a
misconfiguration. RFC3513 2.6.1 suggests to me that
3ffe:8001:c:ffff::36/127 is the router address (my end) and the other
side should be 3ffe:8001:c:ffff::37/127.
> 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).
>
Both Yoshifuji and yourself suggested that /127 isn't the way to go and
that this is something v6ops ought to take up. I had a quick look at the
v6ops IETF group and nothing struck me.
What would you recommend I look at to see why /127 is a bad idea or /64
is a better idea than /127?
Thanks,
Anand
|