Subject: Re: RFC 3056

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:47:06 +0100

Hi Pekka,

> Well, if no such thing is created, I think that's an implementation 
issue. 
> Anyway, RFC3056 is more of a ngtrans than ipng.  I don't see why you 
> couldn't create an entry for automatic tunnels, the only thing to watch 
> out for is that tunnelConfigRemoteAddress is zero.

This seems a nice trick. So basically what you are suggesting, is to 
create **1** entry in the tunnelConfigTable that serves **all** tunnels 
(to all 6to4 relay routers and/or 6to4 routers)?

        Francis.

=================

Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
01/03/2002 08:17

        To:     Francis ARTS/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
        cc:     [email-masked]
        Subject:        Re: RFC 3056 

On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> Thanks for your replies. I do have 1 question with respect to the
> pseudo-interfaces. For **configured** tunnels the ifIndex for the
> corresponding pseudo interface is created as a by-product of row
> creation in the tunnelConfigTable (RFC 2667). However, for automatic
> tunnels no row is created in the tunnelConfigTable. But what is then the
> trigger to create an ifIndex for a pseudo interface for an **automatic**
> tunnel?
> 
> Thanks for any clarifications you can provide.

Well, if no such thing is created, I think that's an implementation issue. 
 
Anyway, RFC3056 is more of a ngtrans than ipng.  I don't see why you 
couldn't create an entry for automatic tunnels, the only thing to watch 
out for is that tunnelConfigRemoteAddress is zero.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:31:11 +0200 (EET)

> (to all 6to4 relay routers and/or 6to4 routers)?

Yes, because that's what the link is: it never any explicit
destinatination; anything within 2002::/16 will do.