On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Michel Py wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter > > That's correct as long as the RFC3056 code is only enabled in > > the site border router. If it's enabled in any internal routers, > > the packets will get black holed internally. > > I don't think so. They will be blackholed only if the traffic crosses a > 6to4 tunnel interface, not if the 6to4 address is treated/configured as > a regular IPv6 address.
True. (But this was already stated.) > If the routing table contains IGP or connected > routes with a mask of /64 as it should be the longest match route will > prevail over the 2002::/16 route associated with the tunnel interface > and traffic should flow. You're making an assumption that all nodes implementing 6to4 pseudo-intefarce take part in the IGP to get the more specific 2002:FOO routes, or the topology is simple enough that there is only one subnet (, and the site admin expects the default route to do the job). I do not believe this is realistically the case for what's being proposed. > If there is no match in the routing table then > traffic will indeed be blackholed and that's a feature not a bug. True. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
