On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:48:56AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Isn't BSD's single routing table (common for all interfaces) conflicting
> >with the conceptual model of ND with more or less independent interfaces
> >with no routing table for a host implementation but more simple things
> >such as neighbor cache, destination cache, default router list etc. for
> >each interface?
>
> even if we conceptually separate routing table per interface,
> we'd need to look them up together (as one routing table) when
> we make outgoing connection. I don't think it very useful to
> have per-interface routing table (I don't think there's big win).
Well, consider this scenario:
I have an 486/66 machine being the experimental 6BONE router (tunnel to
JOIN) here.
I also want it to be a 2002::/16 <-> ournetwork router.
I do NOT want it to be a 2002::/16 <-> alloftheworld router.
Per-interface-routing tables would be a cheap way to do this.
(But well, a generic filter mechanism would work fine, too.)
-is
PGP signature
