Pekka Savola wrote: > > 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. >
RFC 3056 mainly talks about routers and strongly implies what Michel says, but that MUST NOT is not in any RFC. Some hosts can support such a pseudo-interface, but having it on by default is a problem IMHO. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
