Hello Juliusz, Indeed, RFC 4861 is pretty clear and Redirects seem to have a flow when used with sadr. <gratuitous-ad-for-own-draft> Updating RFC 4861 is one way to do it, we could also make hosts sadr-aware. </gratuitous-ad-for-own-draft>
Brian is going to lead a discussion in 6man about the whole hosts&sadr problem. One interesting fact though is that Open-Source does not wait for IETF to fix IETF’s bugs. http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/net/ipv6/route.c#L1285 It looks like Linux looks at the IPv6 header within the redirect and only applies the redirect to the given source+dest pair. - Pierre > Le 13 juil. 2015 à 09:23, Ole Troan <[email protected]> a écrit : > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
