Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <001d01c2aa7b$ee4a20d0$210d640a@unfix.org> you wrote: > > the nettools themself (route add) supported it all the way > > no they didnt, I must know I am the net tools maintainer. The > default target is supported in route 1.57. Hmmm you probably know this better but as (cut from route.c) 8<--------- * (derived from FvK's 'route.c 1.70 01/04/94') ---------->8 I think one can say that it supported it all along :) 1994 is almost 10 years ago again, and the patch went in before that apparently... > > But since 2.4.20 one can use 'default' again for all setups. > > 2000::/3 was merely a 'hack', replacing 'default'. > > it is not a hack it was there for a good reason, to avoid > link and site local routes. No the 2000::/3 is a hack because one couldn't specify a default route using the <2.4.20 kernels. > Is Linux kernel now not routing site/link local > networks via default routes, or has the admin to add the link/site local > prefixes to it's routing table and blackhole (! reject) them, now? It has, as far as I know and realize, always been like this on Linux: 8<---------------------------- jeroen@purgatory:~$ ip -6 ro sho 3ffe:8114:1000::26/127 via :: dev ipng proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1280 advmss 1220 3ffe:8114:2000:240::/64 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1220 2000::/3 via 3ffe:8114:1000::26 dev ipng metric 1024 mtu 1280 advmss 1220 fe80::/10 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1220 fe80::/10 via :: dev ipng proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1280 advmss 1220 fe80::/10 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 ff00::/8 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1220 ff00::/8 dev ipng proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1280 advmss 1220 ff00::/8 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 unreachable default dev lo metric -1 error -101 advmss 1220 ---------------------------->8 The 3ffe:8114:1000::26/127 is a tunnel route. The 3ffe:8114:2000::240::/64 is a native link route. The 2000::/3 was added by me to actually get a kind of default route. The rest are linux 'default' routes, that are there by default. Thus the only thing is that one couldn't add a default route and needed to use 2000::/3 or similar to get a default route behaviour. As you see I still have a 2000::/3 because a default can't be added because of the <2.4.20 kernel and the fact that this box has forwarding turned on. As for the why, I understood that the 'no default on forwarding IPv6 hosts' was made to avoid routers which had a default route in the default free zone, and that routers would require a full view anyways, which is lunacrist. Anyone know the real reason ? Greets, Jeroen - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
