On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > 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. > > I'm confused. When one is inside the border at which an RFC 3056 router is > placed, 6to4 addresses are exactly like any other native IPv6 address.
Yep. (For nodes which don't have 6to4 pseudo-interface enabled, of course.) > No host inside that border should have a 6to4 pseudo-interface. But in reality, they do. Some implementations even enable it automatically. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
