In the example that I gave, the network is not misconfigured.
There is intra-site routing for an entire site, and there is a
second site redundantly attached to the first site.
Are you implying that a mixed-scope packet always indicates
a misconfigured network?
I agree that being able to debug network problems is good, but
I think that it is less important than being able to successfully
route packets to their destinations.
Margaret
At 05:42 PM 7/31/00 -0400, Richard Draves wrote:
>I've thought some in the past about your proposal. It would mean, for
>example, that there would be no Destination Unreachable / Scope Exceeded
>ICMP error because the routing table lookup would be constrained so as to
>not exceed the scope of the source address.
>
>My conclusion was that in normal configurations, it wouldn't make a
>difference. But when a network is misconfigured, it would get in the way of
>debugging the problem because you wouldn't get the ICMP error.
>
>Rich
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 12:26 PM
> > To: IPng Working Group
> > Subject: Scoped Addressing Architecture Routing Issue
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that there is a problem with the forwarding section
> > of the Scoped Addressing Architecture document (section 9).
> >
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
