> > You're making an assumption that all nodes implementing 6to4 > > pseudo-intefarce take part in the IGP to get the more specific > > 2002:FOO routes, > > Well, yes but these nodes are only routers. Hosts MUST NOT have any 6to4 > pseudo-interfaces (or have it deactivated).
Making rules as we speak, uh? At most, you are saying that a node that has a 6to4 interface should be called a router. Fine. What have you achieved? You only get control if you can convince a specific node to not activate a particular function, i.e. if you had control over the node in the first place. It is reasonable to expect nodes who receive an RA for 2002:F00::, or for that matter 2002:DEAD:BEEF::, to route packets bound to that specific prefix towards the interface over which they received the RA. But it is also not unreasonable to expect nodes to drop packets bound to illegal 2002:: addresses, and possibly ignore advertisements of illegal prefixes. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------