netdev - Re: [PATCH] sit: 6to4: honour routing table

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3324b33c97aa3dba56e96b187db30042@chewa.net>
Date:	Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:37:08 +0200
From:	Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@...lab.net>
To:	Sascha Hlusiak <contact@...chahlusiak.de>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sit: 6to4: honour routing table


On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:47:52 +0200, Sascha Hlusiak
<contact@...chahlusiak.de> wrote:
> Using only the actual destination address to determine the IPv4 target in
> try_6to4(&iph6->daddr) seems wrong to me and breaks, if a 6to4 address is
> the next-hop, like ::192.88.99.1 written as 6to4:
> 
> default via 2002:c058:6301:: dev 6to4
> 
> A package to 2001:: would fall through the try_6to4 check to the
> IPv4-compat check and die there.

I don't understand what you're trying to fix. For a 6to4 tunnel, this has
always worked fine for me, as far as I remember:
default via ::192.88.99.1 dev 6to4

> This patch makes try_6to4 use the address of the Next-Hop instead,
> respecting
> the routing table. Users are encouraged to have a route 2002::/16 to the
> tunnel device anyway, making all other 6to4 hosts direct neighbours.

And where exactly is that "encouragement" coming from?

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html