On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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)?
Yes, because that's what the link is: it never any explicit destinatination; anything within 2002::/16 will do. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
