Erik Nordmark wrote:
> 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.
I had always read that section as 'if you don't know a router simply try ND as a last
resort'. I would still consider an implementation broken if it interpreted the lack of
a router entry to mean that it should declare one of its interfaces to be the default
route. I realize this is simply a semantic difference, but mixing the routing table
with the neighbor cache seems like an operational disaster waiting to happen.
> 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.
I didn't read the rule as being restricted to a routing table because it included 'or
the current next-hop neighbor'. I agree that could be interpreted as a router, but it
could also be just the destination pointed to by the NC entry. How about 'or the
current next-hop in the neighbor cache for DB is known to be unreachable'?
Tony
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
