On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Michel Py wrote: > >> Michel Py 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. > > > Pekka Savola wrote: > > 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, > > Well, yes but these nodes are only routers. Hosts MUST NOT have any 6to4 > pseudo-interfaces (or have it deactivated).
There is no such statement anywhere that I know of. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Hosts indeed have 6to4 pseudo-interfaces. > > I do not believe this is realistically the case for what's > > being proposed. > > For what reasons? See above. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
