Re: Recovering from multiple routers advertising routes
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:56:48AM -0400, Bill Cerveny wrote:
> changes caused by the router advertisements. "route" failed in my attempts
> to remove the /64 blocks. I ultimately got rid of the routing problems by
> rebooting the Linux systems.
output of the route command and the error message would be helpful. It might
be needed to use the ip tool, but actually I am not aware of problems in
this regard. Hmm.. perhaps the route had a different metric or something?
Need to try this, only running static routings here.
> -- How is an IPv6 default route added in Debian?
just like with ipv4:
//etc/network/interfaces
iface eth0 inet6 static
address 3ffe:400:4f0:ffff::3
netmask 112
gateway 3ffe:400:4f0:ffff::1
> -- Various resources maintain that adding a default route in Linux is
> problematic and should be avoided. Is this still the case in general
> and/or with Linux?
it was never a problem for a non-forwarding leaf system, and can be done
with 3000/3
> -- Are there any IPv6-specific limitations in the "route" command?
well, the limitation is actually in the ioctl() interface used by the route
command. But your case should be covered, anyway. If you need more, you need
to use "ip" tool.
> -- Are there any lower-level ways of removing IPv6 routes without "route"?
you can always bring the interface down.
> Is this engineer's statement valid or is protocol just fine and the
> implementation broken?
the default config to trust blindly is broken.
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO) -- Bernd_Eckenfels@Wendelinusstrasse39.76646Bruchsal.de --
( .. ) ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
o--o *plush* 2048/93600EFD eckes@irc +497257930613 BE5-RIPE
(O____O) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl!
Reply to: