Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269755AbTGKBr6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:47:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266584AbTGKBr6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:47:58 -0400 Received: from yue.hongo.wide.ad.jp ([203.178.139.94]:21000 "EHLO yue.hongo.wide.ad.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269755AbTGKBrz (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:47:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:03:58 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20030711.110358.32018240.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> To: andre@tomt.net Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mika.liljeberg@welho.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org Subject: Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling broken From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= In-Reply-To: <1057888154.26854.324.camel@localhost> References: <20030710233931.GG1722@zip.com.au> <1057881869.3588.10.camel@hades> <1057888154.26854.324.camel@localhost> Organization: USAGI Project X-URL: http://www.yoshifuji.org/%7Ehideaki/ X-Fingerprint: 90 22 65 EB 1E CF 3A D1 0B DF 80 D8 48 07 F8 94 E0 62 0E EA X-PGP-Key-URL: http://www.yoshifuji.org/%7Ehideaki/hideaki@yoshifuji.org.asc X-Face: "5$Al-.M>NJ%a'@hhZdQm:."qn~PA^gq4o*>iCFToq*bAi#4FRtx}enhuQKz7fNqQz\BYU] $~O_5m-9'}MIs`XGwIEscw;e5b>n"B_?j/AkL~i/MEaZBLP X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1012 Lines: 24 In article <1057888154.26854.324.camel@localhost> (at 11 Jul 2003 03:49:14 +0200), Andre Tomt says: > Thanks for the explanation, I've been struggling to understand what > Yoshfuji tried to explain to me earlier on this topic (see "IPv6 bugs > introduced in 2.4.21" - ie. my bogus bugreport), now it all makes > perfect sense :-) Sorry for my poor explanation... > If you don't have anything but one /64 for example.. I guess /126's > would be ok as you could rule out the the anycast address? It will > probably work with Linux - but is it wrong in any sense, other than > "breaking" with EUI-64/autoconfiguration? I don't think so, but I won't recoomend doing this. (I even don't assign global addresses to p-t-p interface at all.) --yoshfuji - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/