On Thu, 31 May 2001, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] 神明達哉 wrote:
[snip]
> I think "no route to DB" here is a bit confusing for IPv6 hosts, based
> on the neighbor discovery specification. Section 5.2 of RFC 2461
> says:
>
> Next-hop determination for a given unicast destination operates as
> follows. The sender performs a longest prefix match against the
> Prefix List to determine whether the packet's destination is on- or
> off-link. If the destination is on-link, the next-hop address is the
> same as the packet's destination address. Otherwise, the sender
> selects a router from the Default Router List (following the rules
> described in Section 6.3.6). If the Default Router List is empty, <----
> the sender assumes that the destination is on-link. <----
>
> According to the text, every destination has a default route to it or
> is regarded as on-link. In other words, there should always be a
> "route" to every destination. I think we need some clarification
> about the notion of "no route" here, probably using the
> (non-)existence of a default router...?
Also, the default address selection draft wording assumes that off-link
destinations are only reachable through default router(s).
Address selection should be worded to apply cleanly to a situation where
there is no default route, but basically nearly equivalent static routes:
it could be quite common that there is no default router at all, only e.g.
2000::/3 for example.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
