Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 19:35:25 +0100 From: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org> To: Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh <itojun@iijlab.net> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com>, Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Can we just come to a decision on IPv6 and IPSec? Message-ID: <19981207193525.A18185@gvr.org> In-Reply-To: <27487.912737451@coconut.itojun.org>; from Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh on Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 11:10:51AM %2B0900 References: <19981203191001.A28037@gvr.org> <27487.912737451@coconut.itojun.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 11:10:51AM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh wrote: > > One thing we don't implement intentionally is automatic tunnelling > (packets to ::10.1.1.1 automatically tunnelled over IPv6-over-IPv4 > tunnel to 10.1.1.1). Hmm..what does happen when I have a IPV6/V4 host that has an IPV6 native address (so no V4 compatible address) that wants to communicate to an IPv4 host? Do I need to set up IPV4 specific routes to a dual stack machine that does the tunneling for me? -Guido To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981207193525.A18185>