<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

Subject: Re: IPv6 inside UDP inside IPv4 [Ethernet not an option]
From: Eric Mathew Hopper <hopper,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 18:53:06 +0100
In-reply-to: <B17EB7B34580D311BE38525405DF623201318B12@atc-mail-db.atctraining.com.au>

On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 11:59:18AM -0500, Harald Koch wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, that was my thought as well.  :-(  And, by the fact that IPv6
> > addresses are never assigned to cipcbn interfaces, I surmise that CIPE
> > does not support IPv6 natively.
> Reconfigure/recompile CIPE with --enable-protocol=4, and it will
> create ciped-db and cipdb.o. This version uses ethernet-style framing,
> and will support any protocol (including IPv6) natively on the
> interface. I've been running this configuration, including Zebra with
> ospf6d, for over a year.
> (This is all documented, btw; that's how I found it :-)

I was also aware this option existed.  I should perhaps have
specifically said that this isn't what I wanted.  I see little point in
having IPv6/Ethernet/UDP/IPv4 instead of IPv6/IPv4/UDP/IPv4.  The
Ethernet framing is very useful for making two LANs seem like they're
bridged, but for reducing the number of layers, it's not so useful.

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.
It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  --- Thomas Jefferson
"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company."  -- Mark Twain
-- Eric Hopper (hopper,AT,omnifarious,DOT,org  
http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper) --

Attachment: pgp00004.pgp
Description: "PGP signature"

<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]