> Your use of the terms on-link & default route together could be part of the
> confusion. For one, the concept of a default route applies to the next hop
> used when there is no obvious path for this destination, and for all on-link
> nodes there is an obvious path. For the other, the next hop for the default
> route is by definition on-link. I can't say without a picture what that last
> line means, but if an implementation believes that all addresses exist on
> its link, that implementation would appear to be broken.
A node that conforms to RFC 2461 should treat all addresses as being on
its link in one case - so I don't think the implementation is broken but
correct.
The text that Stig quoted from RFC 2461 says at the end
If the Default Router List is empty,
the sender assumes that the destination is on-link.
In Unix implementations a possible implementation of this aspect
is by creating this route
route add default <hostname> -interface
where <hostname> is the hostname/IP address assigned to the node.
One possible way of making the draft clearer would be to, instead of using the
implementation concept of a routing table, express the rule using
the conceptual model in RFC 2461.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
