| To: | mika.liljeberg@xxxxxxxxx (Mika Liljeberg) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow 6to4 routes with SIT |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:58:15 +0400 (MSD) |
| Cc: | pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1058398742.5778.26.camel@hades> from "Mika Liljeberg" at Jul 17, 2003 02:39:02 AM |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > So what's the background for having the hack to specify a tunnel EP with > a gateway route? Technically, it allows to avoid creating hundreds of devices to maintain lots of tunnels. Actually, it exists due to historical reasons. ipip and ipip6 tunnels used the trick from the very beginning. But f.e. ipgre device was new, so it uses more correct approach: actual mapping cross address families can be made via neighbour tables. But this requires to know an IPv6 address of the nexthop. Clean, but inconvenient. :-) Alexey |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/4] Prefix List against 2.5.73, kuznet |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked, kuznet |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Fw: [PATCH] IPv6: Allow 6to4 routes with SIT, Mika Liljeberg |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH] IPv6: Fix broken anycast usage, Mika Liljeberg |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |