Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 19:06:05 +0900
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| to throw out ripng packets to the other end, we would need to have
| fe80::%interface/64 as well as ff02::%interface/64 to be installed
| onto the routing table.
"Need to have fe80::%interface/64" ?? Why?
| how do you setup routers in your setup?
Most likely the same way that you do, but without the bad apps that are
sending to bogus link locals I guess (that or I just haven't bothered
looking as hard for the looping packets).
| or, are you proposing this scenario?
More like that, yes.
| - routing daemon installs Lb%interface/128 once they discover each
| other
| none of the existing routing daemons (i know of) work this way.
Of course not - until you raised the issue recently, no-one really understood
that there was a problem to be solved.
But it need not be the routing daemon that installs the route (though it
easily could be, given that installing routes, and deleting them again, is
its main function) - you could also have the kernel install the route when
it receives a packet from a link local addr (essentially install the neighbour
cache entry based upon info in received packets) - in this case most likely
the multicast ripng packets from the remote router.
I think I prefer having the routing daemon do it, that provides more
opportunities for it to be subject to rules in a config file, etc, and
easier replacement by something more sophisticated.
I think that (at least) I should rest from this discussion for a while,
and await opinions from others.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
