Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269785AbTGKFIM (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:08:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269786AbTGKFIM (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:08:12 -0400 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]:40712 "EHLO netcore.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269785AbTGKFID (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:08:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:22:39 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Mika Liljeberg cc: Andre Tomt , , Subject: Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked In-Reply-To: <1057900800.3588.50.camel@hades> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1254 Lines: 29 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..) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings - 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/