Hi Pekka,
> Well, if no such thing is created, I think that's an implementation issue.
> Anyway, RFC3056 is more of a ngtrans than ipng. I don't see why you
> couldn't create an entry for automatic tunnels, the only thing to watch
> out for is that tunnelConfigRemoteAddress is zero.
This seems a nice trick. So basically what you are suggesting, is to create **1** entry in the tunnelConfigTable that serves **all** tunnels (to all 6to4 relay routers and/or 6to4 routers)?
Francis.
=================
| Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
01/03/2002 08:17
|
To: Francis ARTS/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RFC 3056 |
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks for your replies. I do have 1 question with respect to the
> pseudo-interfaces. For **configured** tunnels the ifIndex for the
> corresponding pseudo interface is created as a by-product of row
> creation in the tunnelConfigTable (RFC 2667). However, for automatic
> tunnels no row is created in the tunnelConfigTable. But what is then the
> trigger to create an ifIndex for a pseudo interface for an **automatic**
> tunnel?
>
> Thanks for any clarifications you can provide.
Well, if no such thing is created, I think that's an implementation issue.
Anyway, RFC3056 is more of a ngtrans than ipng. I don't see why you
couldn't create an entry for automatic tunnels, the only thing to watch
out for is that tunnelConfigRemoteAddress is zero.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
