Subject: Re: question: forcing IPV6 traffic down a IPV6/IPV4 tunnel
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <>
List: tech-net
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