Subject: Re: route6d feature or bug?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/29/1999 23:22:53
>We have set up an IPv6 only network. To get IPv4 connectivity between
>two machines I used an IPv4 over IPv6 gif tunnel. Both machines run
>route6d, one listens only the other advertises routes. I noticed
>something strange. After initial tunnel setup I lost all IPv6
>connectivity (from the machine with the listening route6d).
>Looking at the routing table it seemed the machine had received
>IPv6 route updates from the other side of the tunnel, i.e. over
>IPv4. The machine effectively had all its IPv6 routes pointing
>over the IPv4 tunnel now, instead of over the IPv6 Ethernet.
Could you please supply your network diagram.
I'm not sure if I understand your problem correctly,
Do you have IPv4 over IPv6 tunnel, or IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel. Your
text has both of them. (first paragraph says IPv4 over IPv6, and
next paragraph says IPv6 over IPv4)
>So, it seems to me that route6d assumes that when it receives
>route updates over an interface, that interface provides connectivity
>for both IPv4 and IPv6 (and/or the sending route6d makes a similar
>assumption). I haven't tried whether route6d behaves in a similar
>way with 2 Ethernet interfaces; one IPv6 only, and one IPv4 only.
If you receive route update over IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel, that will
be put onto IPv6 routing table as a route over the tunnel. This is
what route6d is for.