Hi, this appeared on Red Hat bugzilla and I'm not sure if customer presumption is correct `ip -6 route add 10::a120/124 via 10::a111` returns RTNETLINK answers : invalid argument His expected result is that route table to subnet 10::a120/124 should be added <snip> I know RFC3587 described prefix 001b is the unicast global address range assigned by IANA, and all other unicast address rage is 'unassigned'. But 'unassigned' does not mean illegal. It's only administrative purpose. Implementation should not get such restriction. </snip> Is he correct? Should this be fixed? -- Radek Vokál <rvokal@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
