From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx.spodhuis.org (smtp.spodhuis.org [IPv6:2a02:898:31:0:48:4558:736d:7470]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2C1B21F182 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:01:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spodhuis.org; s=d201210; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=ugpl723PPb/nsGwxHd4PPJ/bob9Kq0RJyOebnk4QiYI=; b=aaX/WvyMrqrQ6nARH693+XWBC73CovusPyulJ+1QeZsYV/3UDAXcjDVAH6R9dSXILcn2mrmOdNivQye2rQBdJBbH6bVXwVX8pkkIjz3sRKwK+ehsm71RqiVh0hIdgJk9o70o0ERya6VCEZbgDMNIc9Qay7Q/2x5R5NM8se016po=; Received: from authenticated user by smtp.spodhuis.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1ThzF1-000OU2-6H; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:01:35 +0000 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 04:01:33 -0500 From: Phil Pennock To: Dave Taht Message-ID: <20121210090133.GA93886@redoubt.spodhuis.org> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Taht , cerowrt-users , Michael Richardson References: <3147.1355105084@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <20121210084522.GA93640@redoubt.spodhuis.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: cerowrt-users , Michael Richardson Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-users] 6in4 links X-BeenThere: cerowrt-users@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Support for user problems regarding cerowrt List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:01:37 -0000 On 2012-12-10 at 09:47 +0100, Dave Taht wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Phil Pennock wrote: > > On 2012-12-09 at 21:04 -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> The problem is that the interface that is created is a /128, and it's > >> the ::2, but since it is a /128, the ::1 isn't "On-network", so the > >> static route fails. > > > > Er, a /128 means there can be no route associated with it, this is used > > typically for things like additional aliases on an interface. > > Actually, we route p2p /128's via the babel protocol, and distribute > /128s via the ahcp protocol. Works great. I was imprecise. Sure, with routing delegated by the kernel to a routing daemon, you can do anything routing-wise, all bets are off. I know you know this Dave; I'm not trying to teach you how to suck rotten eggs, I'm clarifying my assertion. For _static_ routes, per the OP, where you have link-layer addresses and need to make a determination of what link-layer address should be attached to a frame going out of an interface, a /128 does not convey enough information. Something needs to translate the routing information from the user-space layer to something that can be used for packets. The route(8) command can not specify L2 recipient addresses. On Linux, you can specify a peer's L2 address with ifconfig(8) or ip(8), which can work in conjunction with a route, which might be enough for the OP, depending upon exactly what is happening? -Phil