Our implementation uses a concept of default interface by piggybacking that
concept on the routing table. If a customer wants a default interface,
they can code a default route using that interface. This then would be the
same default interface that would be used for multicast traffic if no
MULTICAST_IF setsockopt was issued.
Lori
z/OS Communications Server Development - TCP/IP Stack
919-254-6146 T/L 8-444-6146
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 08/06/2001 05:15:20 PM
Please respond to Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: Lori Napoli/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Some comments regarding
draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr-select-05.txt
> (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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
