Hi,
this appeared on Red Hat bugzilla and I''m not sure if customer
presumption is correct
`ip -6 route add 10::a120/124 via 10::a111`
returns
RTNETLINK answers : invalid argument
His expected result is that route table to subnet 10::a120/124 should be
added
<snip>
I know RFC3587 described prefix 001b is the unicast global address range
assigned by IANA, and all other unicast address rage is
''unassigned''.
But ''unassigned'' does not mean illegal. It''s only
administrative
purpose. Implementation should not get such restriction.
</snip>
Is he correct? Should this be fixed?
--
Radek Vokál <rvokal@redhat.com>
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
