>> > > 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 am still not clear on this because I didn't receive
> any more replies ...
>
> What do you do in the case where the host is multihomed?
> Which interface do you use to send the packets?
>
> I think it introduces more issues than what I think it tries
> to resolve.
i also find this part of specification very weird.
in what kind of situation does this behavior help nodes?
also, as Qing pointed out a node cannot decide which interface
it should send out the packet.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
