If you have a multi-homed machine, and you don't have a route to a
particular destination, over which interface do you suggest the packet be
sent out over ? This is in response to the following statement:
from RFC 2461:
If the Default Router List is empty,
the sender assumes that the destination is on-link.
Thanks
Lori
z/OS Communications Server Development - TCP/IP Stack
919-254-6146 T/L 8-444-6146
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@sunroof.eng.sun.com on 07/31/2001 08:09:21
AM
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Some comments regarding
draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr-select-05.txt
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > 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.
One other source of confusion might be that some implementations, when
setting routes manually (ie. not autoconfed), instead of setting _default_
route, prefer something like 2000::/3 so "illegal addresses" won't be
forwarded.
This is an effective default route AFAIS, but might not be one if you go
by the definition above.
--
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
