does this command work for you:
route add -inet6 2001:7a8:432d:1:: -prefixlen 64 -iface fxp1

Jean-Mickael


Richard Braun wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 05:22:10PM +0200, Konstantin KABASSANOV wrote:
> 
>>>No, that's what I do with my tunnels and I thought it would also work
>>
>>for
>>
>>>an ethernet interface. My topology is :
>>>
>>>            ----- fxp0 Router fxp1 -----
>>>                    ne0(pppoe0)
>>>                         |
>>>                         |
>>>
>>>fxp0: flags=3D8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>>>        address: 00:90:27:71:ed:ae
>>>        media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
>>>        status: active
>>>        inet 192.168.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
>>>        inet6 fe80::290:27ff:fe71:edae%fxp0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
>>>        inet6 2001:7a8:432d::1 prefixlen 64
>>>
>>>fxp1: flags=3D8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>>>        address: 00:50:8b:5d:c3:09
>>>        media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
>>>        status: active
>>>        inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
>>>        inet6 fe80::250:8bff:fe5d:c309%fxp1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
>>>
>>>Don't care about ne0 and pppoe0. I would like to have
>>
>>2001:7a8:432d:1::/64
>>
>>>allocated to the fxp1 network, without assigning a global address of
>>
>>that
>>
>>>block on fxp1. Is it possible, and if yes, how ?
>>>
>>
>>That is not really clean... The only thing I can suggest you is to bridge
>>fxp0 and fxp2... (man bridge)
>>
>>Konstantin
> 
> 
> Well, I added fxp1 to avoid bridging :-). So I'd even prefer to use another
> global address on fxp1 than having a bridge. But I don't see why what I
> want isn't clean.
>