Re: RFC 5549 - IPv4 Routes with IPv6 next-hop - Does it really exists?

[Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 12:58, Vincent Bernat <bernat () luffy cx> wrote:

> I didn't test, but the documentation states:

I think only disconnect here is definition of tunnel, there are no
additional headers and I don't think the document implies it and the
RFC it refers to does not. I've not tried it myself, but my
expectation is that internally the next-hop is represented as ipv6
with ipv4 resolution copied for L2 so I anticipate the magic to be
local here  and when they talk about tunnel, I suspect they refer to
that adjacency as tunnel.

-- 
  ++ytti