Juliusz, > I'm wondering if there isn't some interaction between Redirect messages and > source-specific routing that we're overlooking. RFC 4861 Section 8.3 says > the following: > > Redirect messages apply to all flows that are being sent to a given > destination. That is, upon receipt of a Redirect for a Destination > Address, all Destination Cache entries to that address should be > updated to use the specified next-hop, regardless of the contents of > the Flow Label field that appears in the Redirected Header option. > > It does not speak of the source address, so I assume that this applies to all > sources. Consider the following topology: > > ---- A ---+--- B ---- > | > H > > If A and B advertise non-overlapping source-specific default routes and H is > multiplexing its traffic over source addresses in both source prefixes (say, > it's using MP-TCP), its Destination Cache entry will flap between A and B. > > If I'm right, that argues in favour of an update to RFC 4861.
you are right. these issues are currently being discussed in 6man. see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-07 we haven’t reached a conclusion if a source aware redirect is needed or not (if that’s what you had in mind). by the way, there is also ICMP unreachable code 5 (Source address failed ingress/egress policy), which I would think the router should send, rather than the redirect in this case. cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
