Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:33:07 +0900 From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Odd IPv6 behavior when not connected to IPv6 net Message-ID: <y7vpubjkfh8.wl@condor2.jinmei.org> In-Reply-To: <y7vr8vzkfqp.wl@condor2.jinmei.org> References: <y7v1yo4jb9p.wl@condor2.jinmei.org> <200106291628.f5TGSsc13240@ptavv.es.net> <y7vr8vzkfqp.wl@condor2.jinmei.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:27:26 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp.csl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> said:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:28:54 -0700,
>>>>> "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> said:
>>> That is, if we do not have any default router (hear from RA), we
>>> should regard all IPv6 prefixes as on-link. To implement this trick,
>>> we use the "default interface", and install the default route as an
>>> interface direct route to the interface.
>> I think the basic idea in the RFC may be reasonable. It only breaks
>> when the link selected is loopback. Had the stack tried to connect to
>> a physical link, this would have worked as intended, but loopback will
>> always be the wrong answer if it is the link used.
> Just to make it sure, even if you specify a non-loopback interface as
> the default, you should still (usually) see a long delay before the
> connection attempt by IPv6 fails, because this type of error is not a
> hard error for TCP (like "no route to host"). The delay would be
> about 1 minute. I don't think most users do not tolerate the delay,
^^^^^^should be removed.
sorry for the bad wording.
> especially when the IPv4 connection can be established.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y7vpubjkfh8.wl>