[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(usagi-users 03504) Re: Transparent IPv6 Multicast routing
- To: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: (usagi-users 03504) Re: Transparent IPv6 Multicast routing
- From: Peter <programmerhobby@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:31:09 +0100 (BST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=iWXBVLBDddv5ISksRlFGLRg0wypQKHF4okR/s9CHWc8e15sXdzRUDx15KS8zMcfUdJc0jI+CHgFsZXoQUu/sHVxqg5lgQfgFefzqMCOvaoZfIGD3QgDzXhLH8SORuAwgX79mqGN2opegj9+8dap+hKygFXL64s0ZwbrbvZYbpUc= ;
- In-reply-to: <200509290602.j8T624GW026564@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
- Reply-to: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:45:09 BST, Peter said:
> > I have an IPv6 routing problem, which perhaps
> USAGI
> > can help me solve?
> >
> >
> > I want to set up a linux 2.4 box to forward *all*
> ipv6
> > traffic coming in from eth1, actually arbitrary
> > scoped IPv6 multicast addressed streams, to
> > interface ppp0.
>
> *all*? Including traffic for its own IPv6 address,
> packets whos TTL has
> expired, multicast packets that would go
> out-of-scope, and any other
> things that the RFCs say shouldn't be forwarded?
>
Not nessesarily traffic for its own address, packets
with expired TTL or even out of scope packets,
althougt I would not mind.
The whole point with this is simplicity, I know there
are no redundant packages and thus I want them moved
from incoming interface to outgoing, without
interaction from the receiver.
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com