On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Ville Nuorvala wrote:

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] $B5HF#1QL@(B wrote:

quoted

In article [ref] (at Tue, 2 Sep 2003 04:35:34 -0700), "David S. Miller" [off-list ref] says:

quoted

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 17:24:42 +0300 (EEST)
Ville Nuorvala [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Ok, this incremental patch to my previous addrconf.c patch generates a
link-local address to the IPv6 tunnel device. It first tries to inherit
the EUI64 identifier of some other device and if this fails, uses a
random interface id.

Yoshfuji, do you mind if I apply his patch 5 and "5/5+1"?

Well, I have a question and a comment.

        if (ifp->idev->cnf.forwarding == 0 &&
            (dev->flags&IFF_LOOPBACK) == 0 &&
+           dev->type != ARPHRD_TUNNEL6 &&
            (ipv6_addr_type(&ifp->addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL)) {
                struct in6_addr all_routers;

Why?

The other end of the tunnel might not yet be set up to receive the packet,
which causes an ICMP error message to be sent back to the sender.

Besides, RS and RA over a ipv6-in-ipv6 tunnel is a _bad_ idea. A default
route through a tunnel without more advanced (policy/flow/srcaddr/? based)
routing schemes can lead to local routing loops.

Who are you to say it's a bad idea?  Users may have a lot of ideas, which 
some may think are bad but are OK.

There is nothing wrong with RS/RA over an IPv6-over-IPv6 tunnel.  I'd 
probably be concerned myself if it wasn't possible.  _However_, that 
doesn't make sense unless you have a more specific route to the 
destination IPv6 tunnel endpoint.

At the moment, I don't know who'd like to get a default IPv6 route over an
IPv6 tunnel, though.. IPv6 VPN users?  MIPv6 users who restrict themselves 
to bidirectional tunneling through the home agent, maybe?

just my 2 cents.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings