I've set up a virtual test box with two NICs, one to be Internet facing
(simulated, eth1 below) and one intranet facing (eth0 below). I
configured 6to4 to tunnel IPv6 traffic through an IPv4-only test ISP.
The tun6to4 setup provided by scripts in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts
is adding IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses for all the IPv4 addresses to
the tunnel.
Here's the (truncated for brevity) ifconfig output.
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0C:29:8C:47:72
inet addr:172.16.9.7 Bcast:172.16.9.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: 2002:101:102:1:20c:29ff:fe8c:4772/16 Scope:Global
inet6 addr: fe80::20c:29ff:fe8c:4772/64 Scope:Link
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0C:29:8C:47:7C
inet addr:1.1.1.2 Bcast:1.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::20c:29ff:fe8c:477c/64 Scope:Link
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
tun6to4 Link encap:IPv6-in-IPv4
inet6 addr: 2002:101:102::1/16 Scope:Global
inet6 addr: ::1.1.1.2/96 Scope:Compat
inet6 addr: ::172.16.9.7/96 Scope:Compat
inet6 addr: ::127.0.0.1/96 Scope:Unknown
What's up with the Compat and Unknown scope addresses? Generally
speaking, they shouldn't be there. Absolutely the loopback and RFC1918
addresses shouldn't be there. For reference, nothing other than the
6to4 address (2002::/16) is there in F9 and RHEL5. (I haven't used F10,
so I can't comment on it.) Did somebody (would somebody) actually
*want* the current F11 behavior, or is it a bug? I'm inclined to think
"bug," but I figured I'd ask before I BZ it.
Perspective? Knowledge? Anyone?
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
