Ahhhh, its possible my various usagi and non-usagi versions differ in this On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:44:35AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Trent Lloyd wrote: > > > IMHO, Linux should do both: > > > 1) remove the IPv6 default routes pointing on each interface when the > > > interface is created, > > > > They key is, there is no default route, unless its autoconfigured, in > > whcih it should have one.... > > I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, but let me restate > to be clear(er). > > Currently, Linux installs a least-preferred default route on each of > it's interfaces. I.e., if you don't have a default route from e.g., > route advertisements, your routing table might look like: > > $ /sbin/ip -6 r l > fe80::/64 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 > fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 > ff00::/8 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 > ff00::/8 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 > default dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 > default dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 > unreachable default dev lo proto none metric -1 error -101 > > The two default routes, above, are created automatically when the > interfaces are started. Those will cause problems unless you get the > default route from RA's (which overrides or replaces them). > > Hence, the kernel implementation should never add those > least-preferred default routes in the first place. (This was mandated > in RFC2461 "on-link assumption", but has been removed in the revision > now.) > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -- Trent Lloyd <lathiat@bur.st> Bur.st Networking Inc. - : 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
