[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130327183558.GC23223@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:35:58 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Wilco Baan Hofman <wilco@...nhofman.nl>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: /128 link-local subnet on 6in4 (sit) tunnels?
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 07:20:54PM +0100, Wilco Baan Hofman wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 19:11 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 04:37:53PM +0100, Wilco Baan Hofman wrote:
> > >
> > > Weird, but sure, here goes:
> > >
> > > ip tunnel add tunv6-uplink1 mode sit remote 192.168.1.1 local
> > > 192.168.1.21
> > > ip link set tunv6-uplink1 up mtu 1472
> >
> > In my test I didn't specify the local address so addr.s6_addr32[3]
> > seems to be zero. I'll have to search the RFCs why this is the case.
>
> See section 3.7, rfc4213:
>
> The interface identifier [RFC3513] for such an interface may be based
> on the 32-bit IPv4 address of an underlying interface, or formed
> using some other means, as long as it is unique from the other tunnel
> endpoint with a reasonably high probability.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4213
Thanks, I have seen that already. The sit driver is used for more than 6in4
(6to4, isatap, 6rd). So such a change has to be ok with all the other
protocols implemented by sit. I also looked in the historic git archive for a
rationale of this but couldn't find one. Commit messages 2002 where not as
descriptive as today("Import changeset"). :)
I also added YOSHIFUJI Hideaki as Cc, perhaps he knows the reason.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists