Re: 2.4 and full ipv6 - will it happen?

[Bernd Eckenfels <ecki-news2002-08@lina.inka.de>]

In article <20020827160722.GA13412@alcove.wittsend.com> you wrote:
>        It's ignoring something because it's assuming the user knows
> what he's doing and not wanting it to do that?  Does not compute.  

well, it was not my idea, and i dont think I fully understand all that Scope
stuff in IPv6, but I wanted to say:

The kernel is asuming, that a gateway (ie forward=1) is administrated by a
experienced admin, who knows how to set up all those special V6 prefixes,
but wants to defend internet from admins who do not know.

for a single hoomed host a default route does no harm, compared to a gateway
with wrong site or lionk local scope prefix routes.

> Did you mean 2000::/3 (first two bits zero, next bit 1)?  That would
> also cover both the 6bone and production allocations under a slightly
> tighter mask.  The /2 would cover :: through 3fff: but the /3
> would cover 2000: through 3fff:.  Any reaon why we should care about
> the ::/3 band (:: through 1fff:)?

yes, because it does not maks the link and site local prefix starting with
FE and FF (like fe80::/10)

>        Does that imply ipv6 only or does that include ipv4 on those
> tcp6 listens? 

well, depends on the kernel we are talking about. I plan to have tcp,tcp46
and tcp6 (of course udp and icmp, too) entries, like BSD has.

>        I'm not sure I like the tcp6, since it's not tcp that's
> changed, just the ip layer underneath it.  I assume you would also
> have udp6 as well?

yes

>        Hmmm...  Just be careful not to break too many scripts.  Freenet6
> has a template script with their tsp package that, I think, tries to do
> some parsing on that stuff.  That script is also broken due to the
> default route sillyness, and I'm going to let them know to change their
> route add from ::/0 to a route add for something between ::/1 and 2000::/3
> (season to taste) to get the default routes working properly.

tspc works fine for me, but you are right breaking scripts is a bit ugly.
Well on the other hand, it wil lalso unbreak some bsd scripts :)

Greetings
Bernd