On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Ville Nuorvala wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] 吉藤英明 wrote:
> > In article <20030902043534.05fc6586.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Tue, 2 Sep 2003
> > 04:35:34 -0700), "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> >
> > > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 17:24:42 +0300 (EEST)
> > > Ville Nuorvala <vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, this incremental patch to my previous addrconf.c patch generates a
> > > > link-local address to the IPv6 tunnel device. It first tries to inherit
> > > > the EUI64 identifier of some other device and if this fails, uses a
> > > > random interface id.
> > >
> > > Yoshfuji, do you mind if I apply his patch 5 and "5/5+1"?
> >
> > Well, I have a question and a comment.
> >
> > if (ifp->idev->cnf.forwarding == 0 &&
> > (dev->flags&IFF_LOOPBACK) == 0 &&
> > + dev->type != ARPHRD_TUNNEL6 &&
> > (ipv6_addr_type(&ifp->addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL)) {
> > struct in6_addr all_routers;
> >
> > Why?
>
> The other end of the tunnel might not yet be set up to receive the packet,
> which causes an ICMP error message to be sent back to the sender.
>
> Besides, RS and RA over a ipv6-in-ipv6 tunnel is a _bad_ idea. A default
> route through a tunnel without more advanced (policy/flow/srcaddr/? based)
> routing schemes can lead to local routing loops.
Who are you to say it's a bad idea? Users may have a lot of ideas, which
some may think are bad but are OK.
There is nothing wrong with RS/RA over an IPv6-over-IPv6 tunnel. I'd
probably be concerned myself if it wasn't possible. _However_, that
doesn't make sense unless you have a more specific route to the
destination IPv6 tunnel endpoint.
At the moment, I don't know who'd like to get a default IPv6 route over an
IPv6 tunnel, though.. IPv6 VPN users? MIPv6 users who restrict themselves
to bidirectional tunneling through the home agent, maybe?
just my 2 cents.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
|