From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Dec 7 10:36:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29463 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:36:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gvr.gvr.org (gvr.gvr.org [194.151.74.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA29437 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:36:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from guido@gvr.org) Received: (from guido@localhost) by gvr.gvr.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) id TAA18222; Mon, 7 Dec 1998 19:35:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <19981207193525.A18185@gvr.org> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 19:35:25 +0100 From: Guido van Rooij To: Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Andreas Klemm , Eivind Eklund , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Can we just come to a decision on IPv6 and IPSec? References: <19981203191001.A28037@gvr.org> <27487.912737451@coconut.itojun.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <27487.912737451@coconut.itojun.org>; from Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh on Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 11:10:51AM +0900 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 11:10:51AM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh wrote: > > One thing we don't implement intentionally is automatic tunnelling > (packets to ::10.1.1.1 automatically tunnelled over IPv6-over-IPv4 > tunnel to 10.1.1.1). Hmm..what does happen when I have a IPV6/V4 host that has an IPV6 native address (so no V4 compatible address) that wants to communicate to an IPv4 host? Do I need to set up IPV4 specific routes to a dual stack machine that does the tunneling for me? -Guido To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message