Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:22:39 +0300 (EEST) | From | Pekka Savola <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.21+ - IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling b0rked |
| |
On 11 Jul 2003, Mika Liljeberg wrote: > On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 07:51, Pekka Savola wrote: > > Well, the system may make some sense, but IMHO, there is still zero sense > > in policing this thing when you add a route. That's just plain bogus. > > This is a bug which must be fixed ASAP. > > Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in this case the interface had > forwarding enabled and the sanity check in fact prevented a default > route pointing to the node itself from being configured. > > Otherwise I fully agree. The subnet router anycast address doesn't > warrant any special handling.
If that's the case, it's OK -- it's OK, I don't remember the details.
(It might be nice to have configurable /proc option on whether to enable the subnet router anycast address at all, but that's also a different story..)
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |