> >> case 1: consider link local address (La and Lb).
> >>
> >> A (La) --- (Lb) B
> >>
> >> A has fe80::/10 (or fe80::/64 depending on your implementation)
> >> route pointed to the p2p link. if A emits a packet with Lx (!= Lb) as a
> >> destination, it will reach B. then B forwards it back to A. then A forwards
> >> it back to B, ... until hoplimit field goes 0. also, they would emit
> >> ICMPv6 redirect to the peer, since the packet gets forwarded back again to the
> >> incoming interface.
> >Well if Lx is link-local, it should not bie forwarded at all ?
>
> in the existing RFCs, there's no wording that forbids forwarding
> packets to link local address, **given that we forward it back to the
> same link**. A and B are forwarding packets back to the same link.
>
> we cannot forward packets with linklocal address across different
> links. this part is clear but we are not talking about this.
In the case of link-local addresses, I think that the packet should
only be forwarded once across the p2p link- when the hop limit goes
below 255, it shouldn't get forwarded back?
However, I think the bouncing-back-and-forth situation could still
occur if there were 2 routers connected by a p2p link, each advertising
its own onlink prefix for the link, e.g., R1 advertising P1::/64, R2
advertising P2::/64, and then R2 sends a packet to ip6_dst P1::1
to be forwarded by R1..
--Sowmini
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
