> (At least for me) RFC 2461 is not very clear for multiple-interfaces > cases, so the selection of the outgoing interface is implementation > dependent. RFC 2461 explicitly states that multihoming (which should have said multi-interfaced hosts) is out of scope. > Our (KAME's) implementation introduces the notion of "default > interface", which should manually be specified by the user. The > kernel uses the default interface as the outgoing interface in this > case. Is the same default interface also the default for originating multicast packets? Or do you have a separate default when no IPv6_MULTICAST_IF is specified? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Some comments regarding draft-ietf-ipngwg-d... Stig Venaas
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-ietf... Tony Hain
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-ietf... Erik Nordmark
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-... Tony Hain
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-ietf... Pekka Savola
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-... Erik Nordmark
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-ietf... Lori Napoli
- Re: Some comments regardingdraft-i... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-ietf... Erik Nordmark
- Re: Some comments regardingdraft-i... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: Some comments regardingdraft-ietf-... Erik Nordmark
- Re: Some comments regardingdraft-i... JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: Some comments regarding draft-ietf... Lori Napoli
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-ietf... Richard Draves
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-ietf... Erik Nordmark
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-ietf... Richard Draves
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-... Erik Nordmark
- RE: Some comments regarding draft-ietf... Hesham Soliman (ERA)
- Regarding IPv6 Implementation Youngjune Lee Gwon
