>
> > In RFC2461, section 5.2, paragraph 2, the last
> > sentence is "If the Default Router List is empty,
> > the sender assumes that the destination is on-link."
>
> > Why should the destination be considered on-link ??
>
> Its a last resort. I.e., assuming on-link may be a better as the final
> last step compared with just giving up.
>
I think the sending host should just drop the packet when the
destination is not covered in its prefix list and there is
no default route installed. Otherwise IMHO this last attempt
would lead to erroneous packet generation, and allows
misconfigured host or host running a buggy implementation to
continue with bad behavior.
Also the code put in to supporting this looks and feels
like hacks.
Could you please describe a scenario in which such a situation
might occur, and it makes sense to make this final attempt ??
-- Qing
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
