Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked

[Mika Penttilä]

It turns out to be the (otherwise valid) check for  IFF_LOOPBACK for 
gateway's address in ip6_route_add() that gives EINVAL for prefix::, and 
has nothing to do with iid being 0, just a coinsidence....

--Mika

Mika Liljeberg wrote:

>On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 14:48, Pekka Savola wrote:
>  
>
>>On 11 Jul 2003, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Here's a valid use for subnet router anycase that isn't working.
>>>Somebody asked me how to set up 6to4, so I did a little testing.
>>>
>>>Doesn't work:
>>>
>>>hades:~# ip route add ::/0 via 2002:c058:6301::
>>>RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
>>>
>>>Works:
>>>
>>>hades:~# ip route add ::/0 via 2002:c058:6301::1
>>>
>>>Unfortunately the first form is what I need:
>>>
>>>hades:~# host -t AAAA 6to4.ipv6.funet.fi
>>>6to4.ipv6.funet.fi has AAAA address 2001:708:0:1::624
>>>6to4.ipv6.funet.fi has AAAA address 2002:c058:6301::
>>>      
>>>
>>I think that in this particular case, if should have configured your 
>>interface address with 2002:v4:addr::/16, of which subnet anycast router 
>>address would be 2002::.
>>    
>>
>
>Ah ok. It *is* configured with a /16. As far as my host is concerned,
>2002:c058:6301:: should be just a unicast address like any other, so
>maybe there is a IID==0 check somewhere?
>
>  
>
>>>So apparently there really is an inappropriate subnet router anycast
>>>sanity check. Please fix this!
>>>      
>>>
>>This *may* be caused by another issue too: nexthop's must be given in the
>>compatible "::192.88.99.1" format, not 2002:xxxx :-(
>>
>>I sent a patch on over a year or so ago, but it didn't gain that much 
>>enthusiasm..
>>    
>>
>
>I vote for fixing this too. :-)
>
>	MikaL
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [e-mail]
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>  
>