Subject: Re: question: forcing IPV6 traffic down a IPV6/IPV4 tunnel
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <email@example.com>
Date: 03/11/2000 18:07:20
> | If you are wondering about IPv6 ISP does: IIJ is exchanging route
> | with customer (/48), with filtering for inbonud routes.
>This is fine if your provider does it. My IPv6 provider does static
>routing only. Fortunately I'm not using NetBSD (or KAME) as the end
>point of a tunnel, I'm using a router that does let me set a default
>route to point to an interface (a tunnel interface in this case).
Are you okay with having tunnel's link-local address written in
the config file? If so, as long as you use tunnels, you may be
able to do
# route add -inet6 default <gif's link-local, local side>
since our tunnel device (gif) is IFF_POINTOPOINT.
We can make it robust against ethernet card swaps, by
getting gif's link-local address by using
# route add -inet6 default `ifconfig gif0 | sed -e whatever`.
we may be able to try changing sys/net/rtsock.c:route_output.c()
to honor ifp setting from route(8) on RTM_ADD.
(it seems to me that RTM_CHANGE case tries to touch uninitialized
pointer... needs cleanup here...)
Do you think we should try convincing ISPs to exchange routes with
downstream using routing protocols, rather than static route