if_stf and rfc1918
From: Lukasz Stelmach (Lukasz.Stelmach_at_telmark.waw.pl)
Date: 01/31/05
- Previous message: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: dummynet and vr(4)/egress broken in 4.11 ?"
- Next in thread: Hajimu UMEMOTO: "Re: if_stf and rfc1918"
- Reply: Hajimu UMEMOTO: "Re: if_stf and rfc1918"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:53:57 +0100 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Greetings All.
Once I've discussed this matter with Hajimu UMEMOTO and he posted a patch
that made it possible to run 6to4 router behind a nat (FreeBSD 4.x). Soon
I will probably be upgrading my old system to 5.x release so I checked
if newer stf code allows such operation and to my disapointment I've
found out that it doesn't (or at least it seems so). The comment in the
code says that it is a requirement of RFC3056. I've check it and in fact
it says that RFC1918 addresses MUST NOT be used as NLAs in 6to4 addresses.
But IMHO it does not mean that I can't run my 6to4 router behind a NAT
at all. In such a situation the IPv6 address contains valid public IPv4
address and the private one in the IPv4 header is substitutet by NAT. So
after the packets leave my site they are completly valid 6to4 packets.
Also when 6to4 packets come to me they are handeled properly.
My question now is why FreeBSD is so restrictive about it.
Best regards,
Łukasz Stelmach.
PS. Please cc: the answer, thank you.
-- |/ |_, _ .- --, Już z każdej strony pełzną, potworne żądze |__ |_|. | \ |_|. ._' /_. Będę uprawiał nierząd, za pieniądze
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
- Previous message: Jeremie Le Hen: "Re: dummynet and vr(4)/egress broken in 4.11 ?"
- Next in thread: Hajimu UMEMOTO: "Re: if_stf and rfc1918"
- Reply: Hajimu UMEMOTO: "Re: if_stf and rfc1918"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
