Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:25:59 +0900 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "Li, Qing" <qing.li@bluecoat.com> Subject: Re: issue with route Message-ID: <y7vvf4w7e7s.wl%jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <429EEE8C.86657ED1@freebsd.org> References: <48D44BB27BDE3840BDF18E59CB169A5C010AF780@bcs-mail3.internal.cacheflow.com> <429EEE8C.86657ED1@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:33:32 +0200, >>>>> Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> said: >> I verified this behavior on both FreeBSD 5.4 Release and 6.0-CURRENT. > Looks very strange indeed. >> I think this behavior is probably not intended and should be treated >> as a bug. I did a quick patch in sys/net/route.c >> (it's just as easy in sbin/route.c). > Unless this causes or supposed to cause some kind of automagic > IPv4 in IPv6 encapsulation? Can you check out if this is not > the case (RFC references, KAME folks)? This is not the deliberate behavior. I believe prohibiting the mixture of different address families (for a gateway) is the right thing. JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y7vvf4w7e7s.wl%jinmei>